SB 29-18: Sticking a Middle Finger to Big Brother Act (Amended Version Passed)

[Left Wing]

Sticking a Middle Finger to Big Brother Act

Be it enacted in both houses of Congress assembled,

Section 1. Saving Face
a. A "facial recognition camera" is any camera which includes a feature to recognize a person's face.
b. All facial recognition cameras, with the following exceptions, are hereby banned in the Republic of Atlasia.
  i. Smartphones, tablets, and other personal, mobile devices not permanently mounted to a surface shall be exempt from this law.
c. "Permanently mounted" is defined as any electronic device that ceases to function if unplugged from a power outlet
d Owners of such devices shall have until July 1, 2021 to dispose of them.
e. Owners may report the exact model to a government website where they will be sent directions to their local police station.
f. Local police stations will collect cameras that are brought to them and provide reimbursement for the value of when the model first reached the public market, adjusted for inflation. These cameras will be turned over to the federal government at once.
g. Manufacturers of such devices shall immediately cease production of all such devices. They shall be reimbursed for the costs of their stockpile using current market price if they turn their stockpile over to the federal government.
h. Any person or entity found in violation of parts 2(c) and 2(d) may be fined an amount not to exceed $5,000, and shall have such device confiscated.
i. Any police department which fails to turn over cameras received will lose 50% of it's federal funding for a minimum of one fiscal year.

Passed 5-2-1-1 in the House assembled

Sponsor: FalterinArc
Status: Amended Version Passed

[Left Wing]

This was passed back at the end of January but unfortunately never got sent to the senate.

Anyway, I can sponsor, 24 hours to object

[Blair]

This is an interesting bill- I broadly support efforts to regulate facial recognition software and think that society/political leaders have generally been asleep at the wheel in regulating them. But equally they're some parts of this bill that I'm quite unsure about- specifically the cost of a public buy back program.

[Left Wing]

I am recognized as sponsor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Am I correct that this doesn't impact the presence of dash cams and body cams? These have been vital tools in holding police excess accountable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Am I correct that this doesn't impact the presence of dash cams and body cams? These have been vital tools in holding police excess accountable.

[Left Wing]

Am I correct that this doesn't impact the presence of dash cams and body cams? These have been vital tools in holding police excess accountable.

This is correct. The bill only targets facial recognition cameras, which most body cameras are not and irl similar state laws have also not impacted their use.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Am I correct that this doesn't impact the presence of dash cams and body cams? These have been vital tools in holding police excess accountable.

This is correct. The bill only targets facial recognition cameras, which most body cameras are not and irl similar state laws have also not impacted their use.

In that case I have no issues with the bill, my only concern would have been if this would severely impact in a negative fashion what has been one of the most critical tools in terms of policy excess and related matters.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So next steps here?

[Left Wing]

Sticking a Middle Finger to Big Brother Act

Be it enacted in both houses of Congress assembled,

Section 1. Saving Face
a. A "facial recognition camera" is any camera which includes a feature to recognize a person's face.
b. All facial recognition cameras, with the following exceptions, are hereby banned in the Republic of Atlasia.
  i. Smartphones, tablets, and other personal, mobile devices not permanently mounted to a surface shall be exempt from this law.
c. "Permanently mounted" is defined as any electronic device that ceases to function if unplugged from a power outlet
d Owners of such devices shall have until July 1, 2021 to dispose of them.
e. Owners may report the exact model to a government website where they will be sent directions to their local police station.
f. Local police stations will collect cameras that are brought to them and provide reimbursement for the value of when the model first reached the public market, adjusted for inflation. These cameras will be turned over to the federal government at once.
g. Manufacturers of such devices shall immediately cease production of all such devices. They shall be reimbursed for the costs of their stockpile using current market price if they turn their stockpile over to the federal government.
h. Any person or entity found in violation of parts 2(c) and 2(d) may be fined an amount not to exceed $5,000, and shall have such device confiscated.
i. Any police department which fails to turn over cameras received will lose 50% of it's federal funding for a minimum of one fiscal year.

Section 2. Cur-phew
a. "Curfew laws" are defined as all laws prohibiting people of any age group, or in general, from being in public areas during a certain time (usually at night), outside of a state of emergency as declared by either the President or local authorities.
b. Any jurisdiction that passes curfew laws shall lose federal funding
c. All persons cited for violating curfew laws shall have their records expunged.

Passed 5-2-1-1 in the House assembled

I am reintroducing language that was included in the bill as originally written as an amendment. I have altered it so that it doesn’t overwrite regional laws but still puts strong pressure for the jurisdictions not to pass such laws. 36 hours to object to this amendment.

[Pericles]

Why was the curfew amendment struck originally?

[S019]

Why was the curfew amendment struck originally?

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=415081.msg7797221#msg7797221

Also denying federal funding to jurisdictions that pass curfews is a bit extreme, you don't really want 10 year olds on the street at night. Most of these laws are passed for safety reasons.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment is adopted, but of course now we have constitutional problems back.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So what is next here?

[Blair]

Final vote time?

[Pericles]

I'd like more information on whether facial recognition is a valid law enforcement tool, and am not comfortable with the bill yet. It may be wiser to have a regulated system where law enforcement can use it to help solve crimes and protect the public.

[Left Wing]

I'd like more information on whether facial recognition is a valid law enforcement tool, and am not comfortable with the bill yet. It may be wiser to have a regulated system where law enforcement can use it to help solve crimes and protect the public.

One of the main problems with using facial recognition cameras as a law enforcement tool is that is has been scientifically proven these cameras are more prone to misidentify people of color, possibly leading to many in minority groups being arrested for crimes they didn't commit. This is also a technology that could be abused by local jurisdictions, such as tracking down people for minor petty crimes and keeping constant surveillance of citizens, through what is a deeply invasive tactic.

[Pericles]

I'd like more information on whether facial recognition is a valid law enforcement tool, and am not comfortable with the bill yet. It may be wiser to have a regulated system where law enforcement can use it to help solve crimes and protect the public.

One of the main problems with using facial recognition cameras as a law enforcement tool is that is has been scientifically proven these cameras are more prone to misidentify people of color, possibly leading to many in minority groups being arrested for crimes they didn't commit. This is also a technology that could be abused by local jurisdictions, such as tracking down people for minor petty crimes and keeping constant surveillance of citizens, through what is a deeply invasive tactic.

The technology should be improved but the benefits may still outweigh the risks. I'm not sure if we will be able to write up a good set of regulations ourselves, perhaps we could create a non-playable commission that would provide new regulations. One obvious regulation would be setting a mandatory very high confidence setting in the technology for law enforcement. There also appear to have been beneficial uses of it for medical purposes. My worry is that a total ban would be an overreaction since any new technology can make people uncomfortable, but most still benefit society.  I do agree that we don't want this technology being abused to create a kind of Big Brother surveillance state.

[SevenEleven]

What if we ban all camera models that don't meet some sort of rigorous accuracy standard in testing?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My god semi-self propelled debate. Let it continue

[Left Wing]

What if we ban all camera models that don't meet some sort of rigorous accuracy standard in testing?

I would be open to this as a compromise if that’s what the senate would prefer. I certainly think that as long as the testing standards are high enough it’s reasonable to allow them in some cases.

[Blair]

This might be more based on my own experience with policing in the UK but I worry that the police & law enforcement will always argue for more of it... so it starts off with a limited trial, then certain restrictions on its use & you end it with it being rolled out all together.

I'd be very wary of giving the police the power to use it.

[Dr. MB]

What if we ban all camera models that don't meet some sort of rigorous accuracy standard in testing?

The point isn't to make facial recognition cameras more accurate, it's to ban the technology altogether.

[SevenEleven]

What if we ban all camera models that don't meet some sort of rigorous accuracy standard in testing?

The point isn't to make facial recognition cameras more accurate, it's to ban the technology altogether.

Yeah I'm fine with that so I probably won't offer an amendment here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So final vote then?