The Future of Facial Recognition Technology in Milwaukee: A Position Unresolved
The Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) remains in a state of deliberation regarding the potential expansion of facial recognition technology (FRT), as articulated by an MPD spokesperson.
“Ongoing dialogues with the community about FRT are taking place, and no definitive decisions have been reached,” the spokesperson remarked.
Current discussions involve a partnership with Biometrica, a firm that supplies this contentious technology to law enforcement and other entities.
Simultaneously, resistance to such technology is intensifying.
In July, the Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission unanimously enacted a resolution opposing MPD’s use of facial recognition.
The Equal Rights Commission serves as a municipal body dedicated to fostering equality across local institutions and within the community at large.
Tony Snell, the commission’s chair, dispatched a letter to Police Chief Jeffrey Norman urging him to eschew FRT. Copies of the correspondence were also forwarded to the Milwaukee Common Council, Mayor Cavalier Johnson, and the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission.
The resolution underscored concerns regarding the technology’s propensity for error, particularly its disproportionate impact on historically marginalized groups.
According to Snell, the overarching mission of the Equal Rights Commission is to mitigate the risk of discrimination within the city.
Furthermore, the resolution pointed to an absence of publicly accessible data demonstrating favorable outcomes in municipalities that have adopted such technology.
In May, a majority of the Milwaukee Common Council—11 members of the 15—expressed their opposition to facial recognition technology in a letter to Chief Norman. They highlighted the significant risk of misidentification, especially concerning people of color and women, and the potential erosion of community trust in law enforcement.
Additional apprehensions voiced during public testimonies to the commission, presented by community members and civil organizations, included the potential sharing of immigration-related information with federal authorities and the possible targeting of individuals exercising their First Amendment rights.
MPD’s Perspective
The Milwaukee Police Department regards facial recognition technology as a valuable investigative asset.
MPD has maintained that a thoughtfully crafted policy could help mitigate the risks associated with facial recognition technology.
“If MPD proceeds with the acquisition of FRT, a policy will be formulated based on best practices and community feedback,” an MPD spokesperson noted.
Facial recognition is viewed as a powerful investigative resource that can swiftly generate leads, according to Heather Hough, MPD’s chief of staff, during a public meeting convened by the Equal Rights Commission to discuss the subject.
However, Hough emphasized that facial recognition is merely one instrument within the MPD’s broader arsenal.
“The essence of effective policing lies in the human analysis and further investigation conducted by our detectives and officers,” Hough stated.
She also presented case studies, including a high-profile homicide in March 2024, where facial recognition from an adjacent jurisdiction aided in identifying suspects.
Recently, the MPD reported utilizing facial recognition technology to identify a suspect in a homicide that occurred on July 20, leveraging footage from a residential camera located near North 55th Street and West Custer Avenue.
Biometrica’s Stance
Biometrica, the prospective partner under consideration by MPD, emphasized its commitment to reducing potential errors associated with facial recognition technology.
Kadambari Wade, chief privacy officer at Biometrica, asserted that the company continually assesses its methodologies to enhance accuracy.
She acknowledged the concerns surrounding racial bias, affirming their commitment to addressing such issues.
“Wyly is a white Texan, while I am a brown-skinned immigrant,” Wade explained, indicating their shared objective of ensuring equitable services for all users.
Wade further denied any current or anticipated collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“We do not engage with ICE. Our focus does not encompass immigration,” she affirmed.
Looking Ahead
Following the enactment of Wisconsin Act 12, the only official avenue for amending or rejecting MPD policy is through a vote of at least two-thirds of the Common Council—comprising a minimum of 10 members.
Nevertheless, council members cannot reach a decision until MPD formulates its policy, often referred to as a “standard operating procedure.”
Alderman Peter Burgelis, one of four council members not endorsing the Common Council’s letter to Chief Norman, expressed his intention to withhold judgment until he reviews the prospective policy from MPD or an official piece of legislation put forth by the city’s Public Safety and Health Committee.
Snell’s primary concern centers on ensuring that MPD’s decision-making process is equitable and just.
“Regardless of the outcome, our objective is to be an integral part of the procedure to mitigate, as much as possible, the risk of discrimination against individuals,” Snell affirmed.
Source link: Milwaukeenns.org.
