Ready, fire, aim: Ohio officials implement statewide face recognition program without a whiff of public debate
Two months ago, the state government in Ohio secretly implemented a face recognition program using the drivers’ license database to check against mug shots and images of suspects, a local newspaper has learned. Using public records law to obtain documents from the state AG’s office, the Cincinnati Enquirer found that
Since June, police officers have performed 2,600 searches using the new database feature, which is designed to analyze a snapshot or, in some cases, security camera image, and identify the person by matching the photo with his or her driver’s license photo or police mug shot.
The AG, Mike DeWine, didn’t bother informing the public about the plan to use the drivers’ license database as a face recognition fishing pond because, he told the newspaper, 26 other states already do the same thing. That’s probably news to people in those 26 states, although there has been some national reporting on the issue.
The Cincinnati newspaper also found that the AG himself wasn’t aware that the system had been “turned on” until two weeks after police started using it, and had already queried it some 900 times.
What’s the big deal about a system like this? Haven’t police always had access to the images in the drivers’ license database? Sort of. The Enquirer explains:
People with access to the new system – Ohio’s law enforcement officers and civilian employees of police departments – could match any photo of people on the street to photos in the database and gain access to personal information.
Law enforcement officers have long been able to look up suspects’ driver’s license photos and mug shots, with laws outlining harsh penalties for misusing the records. But the facial recognition system opens up new avenues for misuse, even as it offers new opportunities for solving crimes.
Before the facial recognition system’s development, officers had to know a person’s name or address to find a photo. Now, with facial recognition, people with access to the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway can potentially identify any stranger they see or encounter, as long as they have a photo.
That's a pretty powerful tool, so how could the police and government officials simply decide to implement it without any public debate?
Ohio appears to have the same problem with ‘procedural policy-making’ that is driving the expansion of the surveillance state at the local level, nationwide. The emails show that the decision to turn the system on came from the IT department at the state crime lab, not an elected official or even an attorney.
All too often in the post-9/11 United States, there is no democratic process nor public debate about law enforcement policies and technologies that will profoundly change the character of our society. Decisions are simply made behind closed doors, and in some cases the right hand of government doesn’t even know what the left hand is doing.
The emails obtained by the Enquirer show that Ohio officials were aware that the public might not like the plan, once people heard about it. Unfortunately, they appear to be more concerned with selling the face recognition program to Ohio than they are with developing reasonable policies to guide its deployment -- or, heaven forbid, asking the public if it wants to head down this road in the first place!
“Should we have talked about it the day it went live?” DeWine said of the facial recognition system. “You could argue that.”
Communications between top officials refer to “concern” and “controversy,” citing the sensitivity of privacy issues after news broke of the federal National Security Agency’s secret spying efforts on cell phone calls, e-mails and Internet browsing.
“Given recent disclosures about the NSA review of consumer telephone data, this is a time of particular sensitivity to the potential intrusion of governmental snooping into private activities,” said an early-July memo drafted for BCI head Stickrath to send to DeWine. “It is important that we emphasize what this technology is and what it is not.”
Like the NSA all the way at the top of the surveillance state food-chain, the Ohio AG seems more concerned about earning 'the public trust' than he does with running a system that comports with democratic values like openness and accountability.
The accountability measures officials suggest are also reminiscent of the unserious proposals offered by officials in the wake of the NSA scandals. The Ohio government proposes creating a pop-up screen to remind system users that they should only use the face recognition technology “for official purposes.” That would be funny if it were a joke about NSA oversight; sadly, it is not.
The ACLU in Ohio, meanwhile, is calling for the system to be shut down until the public can fully engage in debate and deliberation over the merits and details of such a program.
The rest of us should pay close attention to what goes on in Ohio. The story about Ohio's bad romance with face recognition software raises pertinent and timely questions for the entire nation, as law enforcement increasingly obtains access to powerful, expensive, high-tech surveillance tools.
Is the drivers’ license database in your state being used as a face recognition fishing pond for police and FBI agents? How could it be that officials are making decisions like this behind closed doors, without any public debate?
If local and state police are using face recognition tied into the nearly ubiquitous surveillance cameras throughout our cities and towns, it could spell the end of privacy in public as we know it. Shouldn't we think about that -- and debate it -- before plunging head-first into a futuristic dystopia, where the government knows all and yet we know virtually nothing about what its 'security' agents do behind computer screens, in dark rooms?
These are difficult issues, but the first steps are clear. We need to shine more and brighter lights in all the shadowy corners of state surveillance. We probably won’t like what we find, but we can't fix a problem we don't know exists.
Crossposted from Privacy SOS
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
National Security
Where Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions.