July, 13 2021, 11:08am EDT
![Fight for the Future](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012623/origin.jpg)
Facial Recognition Is Doing Harm Right Now. It's Unacceptable for Lawmakers To Do Anything Other Than Ban It.
The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing today on facial recognition technology. They're expected to discuss a wide range of issues including the recent GAO report on federal government use of facial recognition and the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act.
Below is a statement from Fight for the Future, which can be attributed to Director, Evan Greer (she/her):
WASHINGTON
The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing today on facial recognition technology. They're expected to discuss a wide range of issues including the recent GAO report on federal government use of facial recognition and the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act.
Below is a statement from Fight for the Future, which can be attributed to Director, Evan Greer (she/her):
Facial recognition has already gotten innocent people arrested and jailed. How long before it gets someone killed? Law enforcement and government agencies are using this uniquely dangerous biometric surveillance technology on millions of people right now. We don't have time to debate about "regulatory standards" that will ultimately fail to reduce the harm of this fundamentally discriminatory technology. Lawmakers need to do their jobs right now and pass the Biometric Technology Moratorium Act, a simple bill that would put an immediate stop to the use of this Orwellian technology, giving us time to have real conversations about the role of artificial intelligence and biometric technologies in our society.
Any lawmaker who refuses to support a moratorium on police use of facial recognition is actively enabling racism and discrimination in policing, and allowing law enforcement to continue using this technology to target people who are engaged in First Amendment protected protest activities. Facial recognition surveillance is more like nuclear or biological weapons than it is like alcohol and cigarettes. It's too dangerous to be effectively regulated. We need to simply prohibit its use.
The GAO report confirmed what we already know--that law enforcement and government agencies are using facial recognition technology on millions of people across the U.S. But we also know that certain communities are being targeted by the technology and harmed more than others--at least three Black men have been misidentified by facial recognition and arrested for crimes they didn't commit. People crossing the border are being forced to give up their biometric information and to be under constant surveillance. Six federal agencies, as well as local police, have used facial recognition to identify people protesting racist policing and the murder of George Floyd.
We will be on the lookout for lawmakers who are regurgitating talking points from Big Tech companies, surveillance vendors, and law enforcement agencies. Specifically, it's unacceptable for Democrats to point to the use of facial recognition on the Capitol rioters as an excuse to not support a moratorium on a technology that is disproportionately harming the very same communities that those who stormed the Capitol were trying to disenfranchise. I wrote more about this in a piece for FastCompany back in January.
You can't fight racism and authoritarianism with racist and authoritarian surveillance technology. We reiterate our call for an outright ban on both government and private use of facial recognition surveillance.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
'Scathing' Report Exposes Broken Promises of Cori Bush's Primary Challenger
"Wesley Bell promised long overdue reforms in St. Louis County, but—like his predecessor, Bob McCulloch—he's continued to punish primarily poor and working people," said the Working Families Party national director.
Jul 17, 2024
A local coalition on Wednesday released a report blasting the record of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell, who is challenging progressive Congresswoman Cori Bush in the Democratic primary for Missouri's 1st District.
The report about Bell's five years in his current office was published by the Prosecutor Organizing Table, which includes Action St. Louis, ArchCity Defenders, Freedom Community Center, Forward through Ferguson, MacArthur Justice Center, and Missourians to Abolish the Death Penalty.
"Early on, Bell cast himself as a progressive looking to make fundamental changes to the way that the St. Louis County prosecutor's office operated," the report explains. "He promised changes to address some of the key issues that plague the criminal legal system, including overcharging, lack of transparency, reliance on cash bail, and criminalization of poverty, drug use, and mental health illness."
When Bell took office in 2019, "many residents hoped to see a leader that would fight to dramatically reduce mass human caging on behalf of Black communities and others disproportionately impacted in St. Louis County," the document notes. "We have seen the office fail to implement meaningful change on a number of important fronts."
The analysis began in August 2022 and includes data the coalition collected from Bell's office, "freedom of information requests, independent research, as well as lived experience from people impacted by the carceral system." The report features a timeline of their communication with his office and points out that "some of the issues and questions raised by the table went unanswered."
The Missouri coalition—whose members lead local decarceration and racial justice efforts—evaluated Bell based on five metrics: transparency, charging decisions, pretrial detention, convictions and sentencing, and commitment to community-based alternatives.
"After early progress, the St. Louis County jail population has steadily climbed under Bell's leadership. It has increased 23% in the past year and 46% in the past two years," the report highlights. "Meanwhile, the nation's overall jail and prison population has fallen by over 10%."
"While failing to reduce the jail population long-term, Bell's office has succeeded in securing a $1.8 million budget expansion and a $700,000 [American Rescue Plan Act] grant to hire new attorneys and build out satellite offices with the police," the publication continues. "This risks inflating the office’s budget for years to come, creating even more power to put our neighbors behind bars."
In addition to calling out Bell's prosecutorial record, the groups offered "recommendations for shifting policies and practices towards a survivor-centered approach to restorative justice to decarcerate and address violence at its core."
Bell "discounted the report as politics," according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "Many of the organizations backing the report, he said, have endorsed Bush. And he said she won't debate the issues publicly."
The prosecutor told the newspaper, "My opponent refusing to answer questions and hiding behind this group is disingenuous and does a grave disservice to this community."
Meanwhile, ArchCity spokesperson Z Gorley pointed out that the analysis began long before Bell announced he was running for Congress and Bush's campaign accused Bell of using the congresswoman as a scapegoat "to evade responsibility."
The Working Families Party (WFP)—which has endorsed Bush—called the report "scathing."
"Wesley Bell promised long overdue reforms in St. Louis County, but—like his predecessor, Bob McCulloch—he's continued to punish primarily poor and working people," said WFP national director Maurice Mitchell. "St. Louisans deserve better from their prosecuting attorney."
The race between Bell and Bush has garnered national attention in large part because Republican billionaires and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have backed the prosecutor for the August 6 primary in hopes of ousting the congresswoman for criticizing the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip and her supportiveness of a range of progressive issues.
AIPAC's other top progressive target this cycle was Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who was defeated by his pro-Israel primary challenger, Westchester County Executive George Latimer, last month. Just days later, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) released a joint statement endorsing Bush.
Keep ReadingShow Less
65% of Democratic Voters Want Biden to Step Aside: Poll
A majority of respondents said they want both Biden and Trump to quit the race, and were not confident in the mental fitness of either candidate.
Jul 17, 2024
A majority of U.S. voters want both President Joe Biden and Republican nominee Donald Trump to drop out of the 2024 presidential contest, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats favoring the Democratic incumbent's withdrawal amid mounting concerns over his mental fitness, a poll published Wednesday revealed.
The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey of 1,253 U.S. adults conducted between July 11-15 found that 70% of all respondents want Biden to step aside in favor of an alternative nominee and 57% think Trump should quit the race. Broken down by partisan affiliation, 73% of Republicans, 70% of Independents, and 65% of Democrats want Biden to stand down, while 26% of Republicans, 51% of Independents, and 86% of Democrats say Trump should withdraw.
"I just feel like these two individuals are a sad choice," Alexi Mitchell, a 35-year-old civil servant in Virginia and self-described Democratic-leaning Independent, toldThe Associated Press, adding that Biden has "put us in a bad position where Trump might win."
Black Democrats are Biden's strongest supporters—50% want Biden to continue running—while only 25% of all Democratic voters aged 18-44 want him to stay in the race.
A majority of respondents said they were not confident in the mental fitness of either candidate. Seventy percent of voters said they had little or no confidence in Biden's "mental capacity to be an effective president," while 51% said the same thing about Trump.
The former president was recently convicted of 34 felony charges in New York state related to the falsification of business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election. Trump still faces dozens of federal and state charges in connection with his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, cases that could be impacted by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting presidents "absolute immunity" for acts committed in their official capacity.
Earlier this week, a Trump-appointed federal judge dismissed a case involving Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents—a decision Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has led the case since Trump announced his current campaign, is appealing.
Trump was also impeached twice by the House of Representatives—but not convicted by the Senate—during his first presidential term.
A separate survey by Data for Progress published Wednesday found that "swing" voters are increasingly more concerned about Biden's age than Trump's criminal charges.
According to Data for Progress:
Before the debate and before Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts, we found that swing voters were more concerned about Trump's criminal charges (48%) than Biden's age (41%), with 11% unsure.
After the debate, swing voters have flipped. Now, 53% say they are more concerned about Biden's age, a 12-point increase from our last survey of swing voters. Only 37% say they are more concerned about Trump's criminal charges, an 11-point decrease.
Notably, the new AP-NORC survey was conducted before Saturday's attempted assassination of Trump at a Pennslyvania campaign rally. The deadly shooting seemed to take some wind out of the sails of the burgeoning movement of Democrats urging Biden to withdraw from the race: In the four days before the incident, over a dozen Democratic U.S. lawmakers called on Biden to step aside. In the four days since the assassination attempt, only one more has joined the list, Rep. Adam Schiff of California.
"Our nation is at a crossroads," Schiff told the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday. "A second Trump presidency will undermine the very foundation of our democracy, and I have serious concerns about whether the president can defeat Donald Trump in November."
A Pew Research Center poll published last week showed that more than 6 in 10 U.S. voters see both Biden and Trump as "embarrassing" choices and nearly 9 in 10 said that the 2024 election campaign "does not make them feel proud of the country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Progressives Rip GOP for Siding With Credit Card Giants on Junk Fees
"It is critical that the American people understand the House Republican Conference's firm and dedicated commitment to protecting the business model of unfettered, predatory fines."
Jul 17, 2024
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Wednesday slammed their House Republican colleagues for siding with credit card giants over U.S. consumers by attempting to roll back a Biden administration rule banning excessive late fees—a major profit source for card issuers.
The House's Republican majority is expected in the near future to schedule a floor vote on a GOP-authored resolution that would use the Congressional Review Act to undo the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) rule lowering the typical credit card late fee from $32 to $8.
The CFPB is currently
fighting a Trump-appointed judge's injunction against the rule, which the agency estimates would save Americans more than $14 billion a year in fees.
In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—the chair of the CPC—and more than 50 fellow caucus members welcomed the "opportunity to highlight the Republican majority's enthusiastic support for junk fees, including exorbitant credit card fees."
The letter continues:
We think it is critical that the American people understand the House Republican Conference's firm and dedicated commitment to protecting the business model of unfettered, predatory fines imposed by large corporate banks against ordinary Americans. Thanks to the leadership of the Biden Administration and the CFPB, Americans will collectively receive $10 billion in annual relief from this rule, curbing junk fees levied by profitable credit card giants on consumers.
We look forward to a promptly scheduled vote that allows every House Republican to go on the record opposing an initiative that will rein in a loophole exploited by corporate giants to boost their profits at the expense of American households and create an average savings of $220 per year for more than 45 million people who are charged late fees by large credit card companies.
"We are unsurprised that House Republicans uniformly insist on defending large corporate banks’ current practice of overcharging Americans with credit card late fees," the progressive lawmakers added, "and welcome the opportunity to highlight the contrast in our priorities on the House floor this summer."
A new @POTUS + @CFPB rule means big banks won’t be able to charge over $8 in late fees for credit card payments.
Surprising no one, @HouseGOP is trying to block it đŸ« @SpeakerJohnson: bring this bill to a vote & make your members' support for predatory junk fees official. pic.twitter.com/JuzHU921ur
— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) July 17, 2024
The House GOP's defense of junk fees undercuts the election-year narrative of ascendant pro-worker populism within the Republican Party, which is working aggressively to overturn labor protections enacted by the Biden administration.
In April, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee voted unanimously to advance Rep. Andy Barr's (R-Ky.) resolution to undo the CFPB's rule on late fees. Every Democrat on the panel voted no.
The House Republicans who backed Barr's resolution have received millions of dollars in donations from leading credit card issuers and industry groups fighting the CFPB rule, according to the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), a vocal supporter of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, is leading the Senate effort to roll back the CFPB rule and has criticized the Biden administration for characterizing credit card late-payment penalties as "junk fees."
According to OpenSecrets, Goldman Sachs employees, executives, and PACs have been Scott's largest campaign contributors over the course of his Senate career.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during a Senate Banking Committee hearing last month that Republicans are "falling all over themselves to defend these junk fees."
"If you're wondering why Republicans are introducing legislation to protect junk fees and working overtime to come up with fantastical legal theories to kill the CFPB, I think the answer is pretty clear," said Warren. "Republicans are in bed with big business to rip off families and to protect corporate bottom lines."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular