Pittsburgh City Council’s decision to regulate the use of #facialrecognition software and predictive technology is a miscalculated move, as it does not allow police to use the latest advancements in technology to their advantage.

Pittsburgh voted to regulate the use of facial recognition and predictive policing technologies by city entities, including the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. City Councilman Corey O'Connor introduced the bill. It states that police must seek City Council approval before using or acquiring new technologies, with the exception of emergency situations.

O’Connor has said that the technology needs to be limited because it has the potential to hurt “people of color and people in low-income areas.” This does not stand to reason because police are still required to do their jobs; they are not allowed to just arrest and prosecute people without investigating the crimes they are suspected of committing. Even if a computer program thinks two people look alike, police will still need to determine whether they are involved in a crime. That takes evidence, not just speculation on the part of a technology that analyzes facial features.

Another unfounded argument about this technology is that police need to be restricted from using the confidential databases for personal reasons, such as spying on exes, business partners, neighbors and journalists. The police have also been accused of using technology in the absence of warrants or reasonable suspicion, which is a violation of human rights.

Councilman Reverend Ricky Burgess, who represents neighborhoods including East Liberty and Homewood, voted for the bill. However, he stated that it was largely inconsequential, since "right now, today, the City of Pittsburgh is using facial recognition through the state of Pennsylvania, and this bill does not stop it." The technology he was referring to, known as JNET, is a statewide database that includes PennDOT driver's license photos and other sources such as prison photos. 

At the same time, law enforcement agencies note that software with the ability to analyze and identify human faces is an incredibly valuable advancement that can aid them in effective policing. Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich said, "this technology has helped solve numerous violent crimes within the City of Pittsburgh. It’s a tool in the toolbox."

Unfortunately, due to all the fear-mongering that exists, there is a real danger that allowing the City Council to control facial recognition technology's use may lead to a full-fledged ban on using this valuable tool. Public safety officials have repeatedly stressed that the technology is not something that immediately leads to the arrest of someone without conduction of a thorough case. It merely aids in identifying possible suspects. 

Despite its shortcomings, face recognition technology has the potential to be a tremendous help to police when conducting their investigations. City Council members should not be able to ban any investigative tool without good reason, and there is no good reason in this case. This technology does not present an elevated risk of harm to citizens or to the police. If anything, this is a great opportunity to follow the example set forth by Carnegie Mellon University's Responsible AI initiative, which encourages dialog about the potential pitfalls and benefits of artificial intelligence.

Technology is ever-evolving and improving, and there is no compelling argument supporting the need to ban police from using it. There are plenty of safeguards in place already, thanks to the fact that humans are responsible for conducting the investigations, and placing restrictions on its use is the same as tying officers' hands with copious amounts of red tape.