<story><title>California Police Are Sharing Facial Recognition Databases to ID Suspects</title><url>https://onezero.medium.com/california-police-are-sharing-facial-recognition-databases-to-id-suspects-3317726d31ad</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>landcoctos</author><text>My local PD wants to do this.  The need the City Commission to   pass a resolution allowing them to sign this agreement.&lt;p&gt;I spoke with one of my commissioners who then had a meeting with the Police Department.  The end result was the Police removed the item from the Commission meeting because they needed more time to prepare, justify and lay out policies in its use.&lt;p&gt;Had I not reached out this likely would have been rubber stamped.</text></comment>
<story><title>California Police Are Sharing Facial Recognition Databases to ID Suspects</title><url>https://onezero.medium.com/california-police-are-sharing-facial-recognition-databases-to-id-suspects-3317726d31ad</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>gumby</author><text>I have a hard time getting too upset about this &lt;i&gt;as described in the article&lt;/i&gt;. Sharing &lt;i&gt;police&lt;/i&gt; fingerprints and mug shots doesn’t sound too bad.&lt;p&gt;There are of course “but”s:
- should mug shots be retained for people later freed&amp;#x2F;not convicted?  Certainly. It he case today for photos, prints, and (in California) DNA.&lt;p&gt;- expanding into the DL database, as mentioned in the article seems like a dangerous scope creep — though what if they are investigating a driving offense like a hit and run?&lt;p&gt;Anyway, a useful article. But not &lt;i&gt;necessarily&lt;/i&gt; a bad thing, for a change.</text></comment>