PORTLAND, Ore. -- Portland is poised to pass the strongest ban on facial-recognition technology in the country next month.

Nearly a year in the making, the Portland City Council is considering two ordinances.

The first would ban government use of facial recognition technology - already passed in cities like San Francisco and Boston. The second would ban its use by businesses in public places, making Portland the first city to do so.

Native Portlander and member of the digital-rights group Fight for the Future, Lia Holland, said there's evidence some Portland businesses are using this technology.

"Because facial recognition is currently totally unregulated in Portland, no one actually has to report whether they're using the technology to anyone, whatsoever," said Holland. "So, we don't actually know how many companies have been using this technology on people."

In the wake of George Floyd's death, Amazon, IBM and Microsoft announced they would suspend the sale of facial-recognition technology to police departments.

City officials have said the Portland Police Bureau doesn't use it, but some law enforcement agencies defend facial recognition as a useful tool for identifying people wanted by authorities.

The technology has come under scrutiny for racial bias. According to a National Institute of Standards and Technology report from December, facial recognition was up to 100 times more likely to misidentify people of color.

Holland said this is happening on the ground in Detroit.

"The Detroit Police Department uses facial recognition to try and identify people who have committed crimes and has, multiple times, arrested black men who look nothing like the people in the videos," said Holland, "based on what the computer says and the own, inherent racism of that police department."

Supporters say facial recognition technology will become more accurate with more "training."

Democrats in Congress are investigating whether it has been used by federal agencies to track protesters.

Holland noted the dangers extend beyond demonstrations. Fight for the Future has raised concerns about the security of the databases where this information is stored.

"It exposes our data to potential hackers, stalkers and other bad actors," said Holland. "Think about your credit card number. If that gets hacked, you can just change it. But you can't change your face or the face of your child."

The Portland City Council is scheduled to vote on these ordinances Sept. 9.




get more stories like this via email

A new Washington law ensures employees quick access to their personnel files, which are necessary for many things including filing for workers' compensation and unemployment claims.

Employers must now provide copies of the files when requested within 21 days or face possible legal action.

Jesse Wing, an employment attorney in Seattle, noted under the old law, many employers ignored or restricted requests.

"There are even employers who are located in a different part of the state who say, 'if you want to drive here, you can sit in our conference room and look at the documents but you can't have a copy of them, we won't send them to you.' Which also can cause a lot of problems for employees who have disabilities,'" Wing explained.

Wing noted the new law took seven years to pass, largely because the business community voiced concerns about time-consuming document searches and possible sensitive employee information in the files. He countered digital files make retrieval quick and legally, employees already have access to their records.

Wing added a flood of lawsuits is unlikely under the new law, as they would offer little payoff and employers can avoid them simply by complying.

"What we really want is our clients to be able to get the documents that they need for all the myriad reasons that they need them," Wing stressed.

Wing pointed out the new law only applies to employees working in the private sector. Public employees have another mechanism to obtain their files. Although, he said, there have been problems with that system as well, so follow-up legislation may be needed.


get more stories like this via email

A groundbreaking radio show from the early 1990s is returning this weekend in Arkansas. The PHAT LIP! You(th)Talk Radio show will be back on the airwaves Saturday on KABF 88.3 FM Community Radio in Little Rock.

The show, produced by Washitaw Foothills Youth Media Arts and Literacy Collective, features young people ages 16 to 24.

Director Kwami Abdul-Bey says the broadcast gives teens and young adults a chance to express their feelings about a variety of topics.

"We want all young people involved in the conversation, so you'll be hearing what they have to say particularly as it has to deal with civic engagement and electoral justice," he said.

The show will air from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. the first and third Saturday of each month, and is also available on KABF.org and through the Shortwave Relay Service.

The talk show is funded by a three-year grant. Some of the topics the students want to address are medical and student debt and funding cuts for social programs.

Jasmine Serrano, a show host, is a junior at Jacksonville High School in Jacksonville, and said she got involved with the project after speaking to members of the Arkansas Legislature.

"In society, we always look at the adults and we always look at the older folks and generations, but we don't really take the time to pay attention to how the current policies and societal perceptions are impacting youth," Serrano explained.

When Abdul-Bey started the original show in 1994, he said it was in response to a documentary that painted Arkansas youth in a bad light. His seventh-grade social studies students wanted to combat the negative stereotypes. He noted the name of the show reflects the music of the times.

"One of my favorite hip-hop artists back in the 1990s was Fat Lip from Digable Planets," he continued. "And 'pfat' at the time was something that was cool, something that was vital as far as the culture was concerned. And 'lip' just means you talk too much."

Reports of the Trump administration considering taxing wealthy Americans to pay for mass deportations and other priorities come on the heels of a new study showing how the move could generate significant revenues without slowing economic growth.

Mary Eschelbach Hansen, associate professor of economics at American University and the report's co-author, said raising tax rates for people who earn more than $609,000 a year to 44% would add 3% to the nation's tax coffers, enough to stave off cuts to popular programs serving low-income Coloradans.

"In current budget proportions, that's about enough to pay for some of the biggest, most important programs like food stamps SNAP, Children's Health Insurance Program, and also Temporary Assistance for Needy Families," Eschelbach Hansen outlined.

While 44% may seem high compared to today's top rate of 37%, it is a lot less than the 92% paid by people who earned more than $400,000 a year under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Republicans have long argued tax cuts create economic benefits for all, and leaders in Congress, including Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., the House Speaker, have said they would oppose any tax hikes.

Eschelbach Hansen argued raising the top tax rate would also increase how much of the national income pie most Americans get to keep, compared to how much the wealthiest get, by about 2%. She added years of trickle-down economics have shown only the wealthy benefit from low tax rates.

"If lowering top tax rates was going to trickle down, then you and I would be much richer than we are now," Eschelbach Hansen pointed out. "Because we have had an era of low top tax rates for decades."

Eschelbach Hansen stressed higher personal tax rates have virtually no impact on long-term economic growth, and lower personal tax rates lead to less economic growth, because people tend to take advantage of the lower rate by moving their income.

"Instead of reinvesting it in your business, where it will grow your business and grow the economy, you'll be more likely to just take it as personal income, which is not going to stimulate growth," Eschelbach Hansen explained.


get more stories like this via email