Most active commenters
  • jajuuka(3)

←back to thread

NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

(www.thecity.nyc)
291 points dataflow | 31 comments | 18 Jul 25 13:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.721s | source | bottom
1. gruez ◴[18 Jul 25 14:11 UTC] No.44604843[source]▶
>A city fire marshal used FDNY’s access to a facial recognition software to help NYPD detectives identify a pro-Palestinian protester at Columbia University, circumventing policies that tightly restrict the Police Department’s use of the technology.

Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition?

replies(4): >>44604976 #>>44605387 #>>44605709 #>>44605831 #
2. dmix ◴[18 Jul 25 14:25 UTC] No.44604976[source]▶
The cop emailed the Fire Marshal who technically does investigations for stuff like arson. Maybe that's the justification for it, not sure.
replies(1): >>44605022 #
3. toomuchtodo ◴[18 Jul 25 14:29 UTC] No.44605022[source]▶
Same operating model of law enforcement laundering their data requests on the Flock Safety/Group ALPR platform through adjacent agencies who have access. My hot take is this should be a termination and criminal offense in public employment (as a cybersecurity/risk mgmt practitioner).
replies(2): >>44605128 #>>44608033 #
4. dmix ◴[18 Jul 25 14:38 UTC] No.44605128{3}[source]▶
Or Five Eyes doing data sharing between themselves which 'incidentally' bypasses domestic surveillance laws

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d...

5. hearsathought ◴[18 Jul 25 14:59 UTC] No.44605387[source]▶
Cause israel. The fire marshal probably is pro-israel or israel has dirt on him.

All because of a protest against a foreign country committing acts of genocide. It's unbelievable when you think about it.

replies(1): >>44605460 #
6. reactordev ◴[18 Jul 25 15:20 UTC] No.44605688{3}[source]▶
Just because it was written does not make it true. Cops have come up with all sorts of excuses to justify their criminal behavior including just plain old “I’m a cop” defense.
7. buran77 ◴[18 Jul 25 15:21 UTC] No.44605700{3}[source]▶
One thing's for sure, it always starts with the "terrorists" and "pedophiles". But it would never be used against someone like you, would it?

Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving is what this is.

8. bsenftner ◴[18 Jul 25 15:22 UTC] No.44605709[source]▶
It is not so important that the fire marshal has facial recognition, because the office chose that option because access was then free of charge and a mere handshake to them. If not the fire marshal, some independent 3rd party. This is a known trivial loophole to facial recognition bans. (Former lead dev of globally leading FR system.)
replies(2): >>44607066 #>>44607767 #
9. hearsathought ◴[18 Jul 25 15:23 UTC] No.44605721{3}[source]▶
> He hit (or at least was accused of hitting) a counter-protester with a rock. It's in the 3rd paragraph of the article.

And? Do you think the authorities would go to such extremes over a rock throwing incident if it didn't involve israel? Better yet, if it was the pro-israel counter-protestor throwing the rock, do you think the authorities would have wasted a second investigating the matter? Let alone breaking the law to get the suspect?

10. neilv ◴[18 Jul 25 15:31 UTC] No.44605831[source]▶
> Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition?

Arson investigation, identifying the people at the scene of a suspicious fire?

replies(3): >>44605889 #>>44606781 #>>44608889 #
11. krapp ◴[18 Jul 25 15:35 UTC] No.44605889[source]▶
The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes.

The police should be the ones investigating crimes, under extremely strict and limited guidelines (eg. 4th amendment) which in this case include not being allowed to use facial recognition software.

replies(3): >>44606334 #>>44606484 #>>44606527 #
12. Anechoic ◴[18 Jul 25 16:06 UTC] No.44606334{3}[source]▶
The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes.

Part of the investigation is determining whether the event is actually a crime. I'd much rather have subject matter experts make the determination of arson vs. act-of-god rather than "every nail needs a hammer" police force.

replies(1): >>44606559 #
13. some_random ◴[18 Jul 25 16:18 UTC] No.44606484{3}[source]▶
I think it's better to have a specific expert non-police organization in charge of investigating specific crimes like this, in fact we could probably do more of this. The issue here is that the NYPD wasn't banned because of 4th amendment reasons but based on a local law that didn't consider this loophole.
14. jajuuka ◴[18 Jul 25 16:21 UTC] No.44606527{3}[source]▶
So adding more responsibilities to police to now also get expert level training in determining causes of fires and finding clues in a fire incident. That's kind of how we got here. Where the police are a panacea making them less effective and more corrupt since they are an even bigger keystone.

Separating out duties to experts is more effective. Let the fire department investigate fires and then pass on the information for the police to secure the suspect/s and follow the justice system. Same with mental health emergency cases. More social workers and experts dealing with a variety of mental disorders will be better to work people in crisis since they are trained for that.

replies(3): >>44606714 #>>44607139 #>>44607144 #
15. Detrytus ◴[18 Jul 25 16:23 UTC] No.44606559{4}[source]▶
Determining if it was an arson vs act-of-god should be mostly lab work, analyzing how the fire spread, whether there are any traces of flammable substances that should not be there, etc. That's what fire department should do, because they have expertise here. Analyzing security footage for potential suspects should be done by police.
replies(1): >>44607372 #
16. mschuster91 ◴[18 Jul 25 16:36 UTC] No.44606714{4}[source]▶
> So adding more responsibilities to police to now also get expert level training in determining causes of fires and finding clues in a fire incident.

In Germany, we have the same separation. We have solved the issue by having dedicated units for stuff like political crimes, online crimes, fire/arson investigators, organized crime, property crimes, violent crimes, drug units, you name it.

They're all policemen and -women, but at the very least they stay on the unit for many years and learn on the job, or they get additional education, or they get actual professionals (aka, the police officers do the police/bureaucracy side of things, the expert does the forensics).

> Let the fire department investigate fires and then pass on the information for the police to secure the suspect/s and follow the justice system.

Bad idea, there are lots of things to take care about when collecting and securing evidence.

replies(1): >>44607323 #
17. mitthrowaway2 ◴[18 Jul 25 16:40 UTC] No.44606781[source]▶
Wouldn't the fire department's role in an arson investigation be limited to consulting about the fire itself? (eg. identifying if accelerant was used, etc). I can't imagine they'd be identifying a suspect.
18. rendaw ◴[18 Jul 25 16:57 UTC] No.44607066[source]▶
It is not so important that the fire marshal has facial recognition, because the police department chose to ask the fire department because access was then free of charge and a mere handshake to them. If not the fire marshal, the police department would have chosen some independent 3rd party. This is a known trivial loophole to facial recognition bans. (Former lead dev of globally leading facial recognition system.)
19. ◴[18 Jul 25 17:03 UTC] No.44607139{4}[source]▶
20. drowsspa ◴[18 Jul 25 17:03 UTC] No.44607144{4}[source]▶
The skills for putting out fires is very different from those for investigating fire-related crimes. It's literally a subarea of forensic science...
replies(1): >>44607232 #
21. jajuuka ◴[18 Jul 25 17:10 UTC] No.44607232{5}[source]▶
The fire department is bigger than the guys riding the truck. Those same guys aren't doing the investigation either. It's like saying cops can't investigate crimes because all they do is sit in medians and check for speeders.
replies(1): >>44607251 #
22. drowsspa ◴[18 Jul 25 17:11 UTC] No.44607251{6}[source]▶
I'm of course talking about the purpose of the department, not about the skills of an individual fireman.
23. jajuuka ◴[18 Jul 25 17:16 UTC] No.44607323{5}[source]▶
The US has similar department separation (just look at how many versions of Law and Order there are), but it's less diverse. So the number of departments is smaller.

Not a bad idea at all. The people from the fire department investigating arson are highly specialized. The only difference between the two systems is which head organization it falls under. So it would be like your fire/arson investigators working under the fire department instead of the police.

US policing has regularly been used to commit abuse and harassment as well as straight crimes. So having that consolidation of power is not good. This store is a perfect example of why they need to be separated because the police cannot be trusted to use facial ID tech responsibly.

24. Anechoic ◴[18 Jul 25 17:19 UTC] No.44607372{5}[source]▶
Analyzing security footage for potential suspects should be done by police.

Again, it's not just "potential suspects" it's potential witnesses, or identification of potential casualties. I don't feel great about state actors of any type using facial ID, but I can think of any number of reasons why a FD might use it in the course of their duties, and I would much prefer they have it over the PD.

25. pinkmuffinere ◴[18 Jul 25 17:51 UTC] No.44607767[source]▶
Sorry, can you clarify this? I’m not understanding. I think you’re saying

- the fire marshal happened to be the route chosen in this case

- but there are many other routes

- so the fire marshal detail is kindof insignificant.

Is that a correct understanding? If so, I still wonder why the fire marshal has access?

replies(2): >>44608733 #>>44609787 #
26. geodel ◴[18 Jul 25 18:13 UTC] No.44608033{3}[source]▶
This sounds great. Have your clients or employers followed this advice?
replies(1): >>44608137 #
27. toomuchtodo ◴[18 Jul 25 18:23 UTC] No.44608137{4}[source]▶
Yes, and in some cases, I was the person who had to sign off on the termination after providing a packet from the incident response case (which feels about as terrible as having to lay someone off, having had to do that before too).
28. bsenftner ◴[18 Jul 25 19:19 UTC] No.44608733{3}[source]▶
Fire marshals are investigative, and under less scrutiny. That specific one probably just wanted it. If one wants Clearview FR, there is very little beyond ethics and the state of mind to understand the ethics preventing anyone from running Clearview FR.
29. dataflow ◴[18 Jul 25 19:33 UTC] No.44608889[source]▶
I really don't understand what the face of a person has to do with understanding whether something is arson or not. Just as I see no reason why my local grocery store's security guard needs to be able to look up my face in a database directly. If they need to gather more data, then they can ask law enforcement to identify any relevant people and gather relevant information (potentially bringing witnesses in for questioning if there's a legitimate need), then do their investigation based on the evidence to analyze the circumstances of the fire.
30. ccorcos ◴[18 Jul 25 21:00 UTC] No.44609787{3}[source]▶
I think what he’s saying is if the police department is trying to identify a person in a photo, then anyone from the public can try to help them out.

Whether those people use facial recognition software or not isn’t exactly relevant to the law because the police didn’t use it. And it’s legal for other people to use it. As far as the police are concerned, they could have just been the person’s neighbor…

replies(1): >>44610049 #
31. ◴[18 Jul 25 21:29 UTC] No.44610049{4}[source]▶