Overview

• New Orleans Police Department secretly deployed real-time facial recognition surveillance that continuously scans public spaces and alerts officers via phone app—a system managed by a private organization with minimal oversight, representing an unprecedented escalation beyond traditional police use of the technology.

• The system raises serious constitutional concerns about privacy in public spaces, with ACLU attorney Nathan Fried Wessler (who argued the landmark Carpenter v. United States case) describing it as crossing a "red line" in a free society.

• Facial recognition technology suffers from documented reliability problems, with at least seven wrongful arrests in the US and disproportionate misidentification of darker-skinned individuals, creating particular risks in New Orleans' implementation with poor-quality cameras and rushed police responses.

• Similar surveillance approaches in London demonstrate how these systems can force innocent people to prove their identity when misidentified, effectively creating a "checkpoint society" that contradicts principles of freedom of movement.

• The central question emerging is whether police should use facial recognition in public spaces at all, and if permitted, what due process protections and oversight mechanisms must be established to prevent abuse.

Content

Facial Recognition Technology in New Orleans

* The New Orleans Police Department secretly used facial recognition technology to scan city streets, as revealed by a Washington Post investigation * This surveillance method is unprecedented in major U.S. cities and potentially violated municipal technology use guidelines * The system involves: - Cameras that scan every face and match against a watch list created by a private individual - Alerts sent directly to police officers' phones via an app - Privately run system with minimal accountability - Cameras and watch lists managed by a private organization

How This Differs From Typical Facial Recognition Use

* Most police departments use facial recognition to identify suspects from existing images * New Orleans' approach is more invasive, involving continuous, pervasive tracking * The system represents a significant escalation in surveillance technology * The technology can: - Automatically scan, identify, and track individuals in public spaces - Map physical facial features - Compare images against large databases (mugshots, driver's licenses, social media) - Identify people in live camera feeds - Retroactively track a person's movements over time - Create permanent records of individual movements

Legal and Privacy Context

* Nathan Fried Wessler (ACLU) previously argued Carpenter v. United States, a Supreme Court case establishing warrant requirements for cell phone location data * The New Orleans system raises serious privacy concerns * The approach is seen as crossing a "red line" in a free and open society * The technology raises significant constitutional questions * Challenges traditional notions of privacy and anonymity in public spaces

Reliability and Bias Concerns

* The technology is highly unreliable, with at least seven documented wrongful arrests in the US * Facial recognition systems disproportionately misidentify darker-skinned faces * In New Orleans, the system is particularly problematic due to: - Glitchy technology - Cameras with poor image quality - Potential for rushed, dangerous police responses - Lack of judicial oversight

Related Surveillance Technologies

* Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) discussed as another invasive tracking technology * ALPRs can: - Scan license plates in real-time - Compare against "hot lists" of vehicles - Create comprehensive movement databases

International Context: London's Experience

* London uses similar facial recognition technology, parking vans in high-traffic areas * London police claim no false arrests since 2016 * Despite claims of no false arrests, the technology still makes frequent identification mistakes * People have been hassled, questioned, and forced to prove their identity * Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch criticizes the practice, arguing it shifts the burden of proving innocence to matched individuals

Broader Implications and Perspectives

* Creates a new government surveillance power that could eliminate privacy in public spaces * No due process protections in the current system * Raises concerns about creating a "checkpoint society" that contradicts principles of freedom of movement * Some view facial recognition as an effective law enforcement technique * Civil liberties groups argue the technology treats everyone as a potential suspect * Public resistance stems from a desire for human interaction in law enforcement * Central question: Should police be permitted to use facial recognition technology in public spaces, and if so, under what parameters?