www.governing.com Open in urlscan Pro
143.204.98.12  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

 * Papers
 * Podcasts
 * Webinars
 * Newsletters

 * Security
 * Finance
 * Context
 * Work
 * More
   
    * Assessments
    * Community Design
    * Modern Governance
    * What’s Next
    * What’s Happening Now
    * Topics
    * About
    * Magazine Archive

 * Search

Menu

 * Security
 * Finance
 * Context
 * Work
 * More
   
    * Assessments
    * Community Design
    * Modern Governance
    * What’s Next
    * What’s Happening Now
    * Topics
    * About
    * Magazine Archive

 * Search

CONTINUE TO SITE
✕


INTERNET EXPLORER 11 IS NOT SUPPORTED

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.
The Future of Security


MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION SETS FACIAL RECOGNITION GUIDELINES


RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE INCLUDE BANNING THE TECHNOLOGY
FROM BEING USED FOR LIVE SURVEILLANCE AND THAT LOCAL POLICE BE PREVENTED FROM
USING IT UNLESS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED TO DO SO BY LAW.

March 22, 2022 • 
Will Katcher, masslive.com
 * Facebook
 * LinkedIn
 * Twitter
 * Email
 * Print

(TNS) — A commission exploring the use of facial recognition technology in
Massachusetts issued recommendations to the state Legislature Tuesday in hope of
ultimately balancing police use of the tool to identify suspects with public
privacy concerns.

Facial technology can be employed to identify a person based on facial features
spotted by video. While it has helped police investigations, use of the software
also brought up significant concerns of its accuracy, the privacy it allowed the
public and its impact on due process laws.

Among its most significant recommendations, the state’s Facial Recognition
Commission said the commonwealth should ban the technology from being used for
live surveillance and place strict limits on local police’s use of the tools.



The commission suggested that local police be prevented from employing facial
recognition programs unless they were explicitly allowed to do so by law.
Instead, it said the Massachusetts State Police should be in charge of managing
facial recognition operations. Any use of algorithms that could recognize
emotions also should be made illegal, the commission said.

“Facial recognition and other biometric technologies are new tools with serious
privacy, accuracy, and due process concerns that we must address,” State Sen.
Jamie Eldridge, a co-chair of the commission, wrote in a statement. “As a
legislator, I find the recommendations critical and needed for our current
criminal justice system, and as guidelines for the commonwealth’s law
enforcement agencies.”

The recommendations delivered to the Legislature by Eldridge a fellow co-chair
State Rep. Michael Day were the culmination of an effort by lawmakers to better
define the technology’s role within law enforcement and its impact on personal
privacy.



Born from a 2020 piece of legislation designed to reform policing in the state,
the commission met regularly throughout the last year and reviewed testimony,
reports, articles and individual community laws on facial recognition
technology. The group also surveyed police across Massachusetts on their use of
the software.

“This commission clearly felt that the commonwealth must clarify the role this
technology should play in our criminal justice system and better address the due
process and civil rights concerns of our residents,” Day said. “The report lays
out a series of measures that will provide our law enforcement professionals
with the tools they need to keep the public safe while implementing the
oversight necessary to ensure that this technology is not misused to the
detriment of the general public.”

The 2020 law banned most government agencies from using facial recognition,
while also creating the commission to evaluate the use of the technology in the
commonwealth.

Other members of the commission included representatives of Gov. Charlie Baker,
the American Civil Liberties Union and the state police.

The report Tuesday recommended that police be required to show probable cause
that a person in a surveillance video has committed a felony crime before a
judge could sign off on identifying them through facial recognition software.

It also suggested that defendants identified using facial recognition be
notified of the technology’s use.

Not every member of the 21-person commission agreed fully with its findings.

Barnstable District Attorney Michael O’Keefe, a commission member, said that
while he approved of much of the report, he took issue with the recommended
limits on police identifying people in the area of crimes. A facial recognition
match by video would act akin to a “tip” in an investigation, he said, but
police would still need to confirm whether the person identified was actually in
the area of the crime.

”Much of the report I agree with. The use of this technology, like all new
technology, should be regulated and appropriate guardrails should be
established,” O’Keefe said. “But police must be allowed to do their job.”

In a statement, Day said that the report made “clear and deliberate
recommendations that account for the complexities of emerging facial recognition
technology and its implications for individual privacy rights on one hand, and
the proper role it can play in our criminal justice system on the other.”

“If the Legislature adopts these recommendations,” he continued, “I believe it
will strike the correct balance between those competing interests and will set
appropriate guidelines for law enforcement’s use of this technology.”


©2022 Advance Local Media LLC. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Related Articles
 * The Future of Security
   Government Agencies Are Tapping A Facial Recognition Company to Prove You’re
   You
   Feb. 6, 2022
 * The Future of Security
   Facial Recognition Can Find Rioters, but May Harm Others
   February 05, 2021
 * The Future of Security
   Staten Island D.A. Uses Controversial Facial Recognition Tool
   January 22, 2021

 * Facebook
 * LinkedIn
 * Twitter
 * Email
 * Print


TAGS:

TechnologyArtificial IntelligencePublic SafetyData Privacy
Featured Resources

eBook: The Strategic Planning Guide for Local Government: Aligned Projects from
Concept to Results

eBook: 10 Tips for Success with ARPA Reporting - Ready to report on your fiscal
recovery funds? In this ebook, you’ll be able to clear up the confusing and
complex reporting process. In an easy-to-understand format, we address the key
elements in how governments organize and report on their work, comply with
Federal guidance, and prepare for the inevitable audits.

Check Out the OpenGov Budgeting and Planning Suite Tour - Want to see how
OpenGov customers are using the Budgeting and Planning Suite to reduce the time
spent on budget development and reporting? Check out this quick product tour.

Blog Post: 7 Ideas From Local Government Leaders to Borrow

Case Study: Forward Thinking Saved York, PA's, Budget After Server Destroyed in
Break-In






Special Projects
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


Never miss a story with Governing's Daily newsletter.
SUBSCRIBE


©2022 All rights reserved. e.Republic
California Residents - Do Not Sell My Personal Information
 *  * Papers
    * Webinars
    * Podcasts
    * Archive

 *  * About
    * Privacy
    * Contact
    * Advertise

Stay Up To Date
Get smart with Governing. Where government is going in states & localities.
SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTERS