Monitoring technologies: debates we do not give

Last Tuesday, the Board of San Francisco supervisors – the legislative body of this city and county of the United States – approved by a large majority an order banning the use of facial recognition technologies as monitoring method. With this initiative (which must be resubmitted to a vote before being elevated to the mayor), the city of North has become the first city to put a brake on this situation. And more: he stressed the importance of discussing and agreeing on the framework for using this type of security tools. Aaron Peskin, chief writing officer of the ordinance, stressed the need to build trust in the community, especially around such delicate issues.

The ban applies to the use by the ministry of facial recognition technologies, with the exception of those used in places governed by federal laws (airports and ports) and with certain exceptions in respect of 39, criminal investigation. But it's not limited to that. It also sets limits for the acquisition of monitoring services and technologies, as well as for the signing of agreements to receive information collected by non-state entities. In addition to requiring the intervention of an information technology committee, it requires submission of impact reports on monitoring practices and development monitoring technology policies. Legislators must discuss and approve proposed regulations for the use of equipment and services prior to acquisition.

Although regulatory models must be adapted to local needs, the case of San Francisco allows to badyze the recent approval and implementation of the fugitive facial recognition system in the city of Buenos Aires in light of its biggest flaw: the absence of a previous debate. The resolution of the Ministry of Justice and Security of Buenos Aires that approved the system has the same date as its beginning of use, mentions the intergovernmental agreements that do not seem to have pbaded through the institutional channels and leave the door open to uses beyond the stated purpose. The formality of the San Francisco ordinance included requests from individuals, the intervention of various civil society organizations, arguments presented by different actors and broad and respectful participation from various sectors. In our case, the acquisition was finalized and a late validation attempt. Some organizations, as well as the city's mediator, have expressed themselves in this regard. But it is not here to reject or accept government actions that have been consummated, but to participate in the debate and that it be conducted or initiated in the corresponding field: the legislature, because it is the only way to do so. is a situation that can affect important rights

Indeed, we come to play guarantees and fundamental rights, the privacy of individuals to the transparency and accountability of their representatives. In essence, the state of innocence ("we are innocent until proven otherwise") risks being falsified by persecuting citizens in unspecified ways. In San Francisco, the ban on facial recognition technology was largely based on the fact that its propensity to "endanger civil rights and freedoms substantially outweighs its benefits". In other words, what has been proposed so many times by civil society and the specialized academy has been formally accepted: a better supervised society is not a safer society.

* Teacher (UBA / UNS) and public security policy consultant.
** Professor of Comparative Models in Citizen Security (UNS). International Consultant