While U.S. cities ban facial recognition, police find clever workarounds to identify people. Tech companies sell new tools that dodge these bans but raise privacy concerns.
Portland, Oregon banned facial recognition in 2021 to protect citizens’ privacy. But now, Portland police use a different tool called “ROVER” that identifies people without technically using facial recognition.
“These alternative technologies slip through legal loopholes,” explains Maya Rodriguez, privacy advocate at Digital Rights Watch. “The law bans one specific thing while similar technologies continue operating freely.”
ROVER doesn’t match faces to a database like traditional facial recognition. Instead, it tracks unique body features like walking style, clothing, and body shape. This distinction lets police claim they’re following the ban.
At least seven major U.S. cities have banned facial recognition since 2019. These laws aimed to prevent unfair targeting of minorities after studies showed the technology often misidentified people of color.
Police departments nationwide now use these alternative surveillance tools. Companies market them specifically as “ban-compliant alternatives” to facial recognition.
Beyond ROVER, police employ license plate readers, cell phone tracking devices, and social media monitoring tools. Together, they create powerful surveillance networks despite restrictions.
“The spirit of these bans was to limit invasive surveillance,” says Carlos Jimenez, technology policy researcher. “But the letter of the law left openings for nearly identical capabilities.”
Some cities are catching on. Seattle recently expanded its ban to include “any technology that can identify individuals based on physical characteristics.” This broader language aims to close loopholes.
Communities face difficult questions about balancing public safety with privacy rights. Police argue these tools help solve crimes and find missing persons. Privacy advocates worry about a surveillance state forming through legal technicalities.
“We need comprehensive privacy laws rather than banning specific technologies,” argues Jimenez. “Otherwise, it’s just a game of whack-a-mole as new surveillance tools emerge.”
The technology continues evolving rapidly. Some newer systems can identify people from a distance without showing their faces at all. Voice recognition and even heartbeat detection are entering the police toolkit.
Citizens can protect themselves by learning about local surveillance policies and demanding transparency from police departments. Community oversight boards help ensure these powerful tools aren’t misused.
As surveillance technology advances, we must question whether our laws can keep pace. The current patchwork of bans clearly isn’t enough to address the deeper issues of privacy in our increasingly monitored society.
The future of public safety may depend on finding this balance. Can we harness technology’s benefits while preventing its misuse? That remains the challenge facing communities across America.
