So we've been talking about this. This is an interesting one. As facial recognition software, it gets better and better. It's it's got some cool ways to use it. Obviously, unlock your phone or if if you ever end up working in a building where it uses your face as your key card to get into building or that sort of stuff, that could be cool. But on the other hand, China is using it to uh, to keep an eye on everybody all the time. It is absolutely a cherished new
tool for totalitarian regimes. So we're a little uncomfortable with it and exploring it. Daniel Castro is the vice president for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Director of i t i F Center for Data Innovation. Joins us. Now, Daniel, how are you, sir? I'm good, Thanks for having me on. You are pro this sort of technology, is that correct? That's right. I see a lot of potential benefits and how can be used. So are you a communist? Have
you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Well, that's an interesting thing that you would ask that because San Francisco is working on becoming the first city in America to ban facial ignition software. There are a lefty city and they think it's a scary things. I don't
know what the politics of this are. Well, San Francisco seems to like to ban a lot of new technologies to come after sidewalk robots, they've gone after the EA scooters, and now they're doing facial recognition and to the history of moving quickly in banning technology and the technology of straws, right right, So listen, help us understand first of all the practical uses of the technology. Let's get excited about the technology. Then we'll get into the civil rights thing
a little bit. Sure. So there's both commercial and government uses right now of facial recognition. So people are increasingly familiar with how you're using it on your phone to unlock your device. Uh, you see it on social networks to automatically sort photos based on who your friends are in search through those. And then you're starting to see
applications in the hospitality industry, for example. So the idea is that you might be able to register for a hotel and then when you walk in, instead of having to give your name and you know, your credit card and everything taken to have a camera that just recognizes you and they can creach you automatically. That's pretty cool. You just walk in the front lobby of the hotel. Everything recognize you, you walk up, your door opens with your credit card or whatever, and you go exactly and
your things much faster. I mean, we're seeing this in airports right now, so you have some of these airlines that you just you don't have to have a you know, your ticket anymore. You just walk straight past the gate, look into a camera, and move on and you're done. So lots of benefits there. What people are mostly concerned about right now is on the government side, particularly around police using it for different reasons. They can use it to quickly search for a suspect from you know, some
surveillance footage. They can use it to create virtual lineups of potential suspects. They can use it to help find a lost child or an elderly adult for one of those Amber Silver alerts. They can also use it to help identify where their offices are in the city. Lots of different uses there. And what's interesting is that, you know, these are things that a lot of times police officers are doing right now manually, so right now when they're
looking for a suspect. Sometimes these departments have just binders full of photos of potential suspects and they just have to leave through these looking for potential matches. And that's a really slow and time intensive process. And what they're doing now with the technology is they're able to search through millions of records very quickly and identify with more
accuracy who potential suspects might be. Then they give that information to officers whould go out and actually the those are some some pretty good upsides to the whole thing. And did we make it clear that you're you're for this facial recognition stuff here. You don't like the idea of San Francisco banning it? Um? Yeah, But now there are all kinds of things that would make it easier to you know, find criminals or whatever that we've avoided
throughout the history of our country. We have never had a national fingerprint and database for instance, or that sort of thing where it make it easier to find people. Well, the really scary part about facial recognition though, is that, unlike other systems like fingerprints, for instance, it can be is for general surveillance in a passive way. It doesn't require me to hold out my thumb or give a
fingerprint or let you check my fingerprints. I mean, it is an incredibly valuable tool for totalitarians or those who would oppress anybody. I mean, you show up at a rally, the authorities are going to know it. They'll just generate a list, and so that sort of thing scary. Does the industry have a position on that sort of thing,
Daniel Daniel Castros with us. Yeah. Absolutely. I think you know, nobody wants the United States to become China in that regards what the type of totalitarian surveillance isn't something that anyone, an industry or outside industry is calling for. But the whole point is there's a there's a big gray area in between, and there's also kind of just replicating things that were already doing today with the technology, but more efficiently.
And that's what the problem with the DAN is. It would be completely fine that San Francisco was saying, let's make sure this technology is never used to, for example, you know, track people throughout the entire city. Let to make sure this is never used to track people at political rallies. But that's not what they're doing. They're saying, let's make sure we never use the technology anywhere across
the entire government, and that's a problem. Interesting. Daniel Castro is the VP for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Director of I T i F Center for Data Innovation. Daniel, we appreciate the chat. Thanks, happy to be here, all right. You know some of that stuff about finding uh, you know, a lost kid or an old ster with Alzheimer's wanting around.
You know, obviously those are those are good arguments for that, but you got you gotta trust that once you allow these tools to be in place, that then then they aren't gonna be misused. And I just don't have that trust you. Well, you would have to have a stringent and utterly clear set of restrictions on them. But I will I will tell you the history of mankind is that those who would misuse whatever technologies are opportunities that exist to oppress people, find ways around them. It's like
campaign finance reform. You give your your bundlers and your experts ten minutes, they'll read the law, they'll say, oh, no problem, we'll just do this and route it through that, and they just beat it. And that's what concerns me. Yeah, it seems that the biggest thing that Georgia Orriel missed about the surveillance state from was that we're just gonna opt into it. It's gonna be so convenient, and it's
gonna just seem like such a a nonstarter. Yeah, of course I'm gonna have my phone linked to my location because that makes it easier for when I'm mapping directions right neat a ride sharing thing. This whole getting on a plane, getting into a hotel thing is so convenient, I'll overlook the other part of it. It's seductive, literally, and that's what Huxley got right. We'd be seduced into oppression, not beaten into it. Um. But you know the other hand, I do hate standing there with my bag on my
shoulder waiting for the damn hotel clerk. I mean, who enjoys the freaks? Right? We just stroll into the hotel, smile at the camera there it's Joe, I'm here, and walk up to my palatial suite and then and then that will be like phone records are currently that the government can access pretty much any time they want to, because it's known that any time they ask for that information,
it's always given to them right there. It will require a warrant unless you know it's voluntarily handed over, and the government says to uh, large hotel chain, listen to some of your environmental practices aren't so great, and I'd hate for the e p A to get all up in your business. How about does facial recognition records years? Do you mind hand them over? Oh? Yeah, yeah, we could do that. Sure, Okay, that's how it works. Study history fools. On the other hand, this is really cool technology.
And again, the politics are kind of interesting. You've got a lefty city like San Francisco looking at being the first city to ban the facial recognition stuff. There will probably be some you know, right wing city that's full of conservatives using finger quotes because these these labels are not very good in these instance. Indeed, who don't want it in their city either. Yeah. Yeah, certainly your libertarian
type conservatives are going to be uncomfortable with it. The interesting thing about the left, and again, those those words are are decreasingly useful. But the interesting thing about the left is that they really cherish freedom from the authorities until they become the authority. Then they are so utterly convinced of their own righteousness they oppress everybody, um and then you know, they become indistinguishable from the right. Really well,
get down. Here's a question for you. Do you think in I don't know how many years, twenty years, fifty years, how long it will take, we'll have a similar system, if not the federal government, at least like local government or state government. Where they got the cameras on the corners, will have We've already got those everywhere. There will be even more of them, and they'll do the same thing to do in China where it picks up your faces you cross the street on computers, picking up on the okay,
here's somebody. They have some outstanding parking tickets, they're behind on their taxes. All that information will be constantly they'll keep a track of where you go. I absolutely think that will happen. Yeah, I'm afraid it will. And and sorry to be checking around all sorts of political theory at you, but there are quite a few on on the libertarian side of things, including iron Rand, whatever you
think of her. Her idea was that there would be so many crimes large and small that everybody would be guilty of something. And that's about where we are right now. So once you are a criminal, the government is justified in doing about anything they want, including you know, the stuff you were describing. So yes, I definitely think we'll have that system, at least in big cities in the future where they're doing that facial recognition thing and everything
about you is you know. Uh brought up on a computer and kept track of At the same time, Old iron Land Iron Rand was a little over the top and wrote unnecessarily long and dull passages in her books, but she got a lot right, And uh, I think we're seeing some of it happening. You know. You you give a government capability, they will misuse it eventually. It's just the way humans work.