PARTNERING: Plausible Deniability > The New LexiCON Loop-Hole To Escape Being Held Accountable

When it comes to the relationship between governments and the truth, that's a tough nut to crack open when answers are provided by insiders in-the-chain-command that are vague and carefully-crafted or evasive.  Push, shove back - Learn to use the right words to ask the right questions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Today's feature post is taken from a report in Techdirt yesterday that exposes sensitive and controversial issues: INVASIONS OF PRIVACY and the USE OF TECHNOLOGY . . .and there's an additional wrinkle at the end

 

Plausible  deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

The term most often refers to the denial of blame in chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible.

In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts.

The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible.

The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's actions or knowledge.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player.

In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CASE IN POINT + THE SPOILER ALERT: As an article published by OneZero put it, “the NOPD has back-channel access to the state’s facial recognition program.” According to the report, the police department relied on technology operated by the Louisiana State Police after local investigators sent a wanted poster with a photo of the suspect to the state fusion center.

And that's how the NOPD is going to pretend its previous denials weren't misleading. Here's how it responded to The Lens when contacted about its apparent years of misdirection.

In a statement to The Lens last week, a department spokesperson said that although it didn’t own facial recognition software itself, it was granted access to the technology through “state and federal partners.”

New Orleans PD Finally Admits It Uses Facial Recognition Tech After Denying It For Years

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the cracks-open-COP-TO-ENGLISH-dictionary dept

Mon, Nov 30th 2020 3:35pm — Tim Cushing

Another large American law enforcement organization has belatedly admitted it uses facial recognition tech after spending years denying it.

Last month, it was the Los Angeles Police Department, which had denied using the tech all the way up until 2019. But records obtained by the Los Angeles Times showed the department had used it 30,000 times over the past decade.

When confronted, the LAPD's assistant chief claimed the last two denials issued by him and his department were "mistakes."

Welcome to the "I guess we'll come clean" club, New Orleans.

The New Orleans Police Department has confirmed that it is utilizing facial recognition for its investigations, despite years of assurances that the city wasn’t employing the technology.

That runs contrary to what's been stated publicly and what's been told to public records requester.  This 2016 report notes the NOPD's response to a request for records was a flat denial: "no responsive records." This 2019 Appeal report contains yet another denial from city officials. . .

It also contains a "but…" -- one that was followed by a refusal to discuss the issue any further.

Norton, the mayor’s spokesperson, told The Appeal that the Real Time Crime Center does not use facial recognition technology. However, Norton said that “relevant video can be shared with public safety agencies as requested for a legitimate public safety purpose.” When asked if the city is aware of any other law enforcement agencies running the footage through facial recognition technology, Norton declined to answer.

And this report by The Tenth Amendment Center makes the NOPD's relationship with the tech more explicit. The NOPD may not have the tech, but it certainly makes use of it.

The City of New Orleans adamantly insists it “does not use facial recognition software.” It even has a line in the privacy policy of its Real-Time Crime Center surveillance hub claiming, “Facial recognition is not utilized by the System.”

. . . And there's an additional wrinkle.

The city is considering a facial recognition ban. But this admission the PD outsources its facial recognition work means it won't be enough to simply forbid the PD from buying and utilizing its own tech. The proposal would need to be rewritten to prevent the PD from sending its photos to state or federal agencies for proxy searching.

The vote on the proposed ban has been delayed as city council members process the NOPD's lies about its facial recognition use and decide what to do with this new information.

Clearly the NOPD would like some of this tech for itself but has recognized it might be tough to sell that idea in this surveillance-weary economy. So it has done the next best thing: it has its friends hook it up. But now the city knows it can't trust its own police department to be honest with it. And this dishonesty should factor heavily into any future agreements the city makes with the NOPD.

Filed Under: facial recognition, new orleans, new orleans police department, police, privacy, surveillance