Why Hong Kong protesters fear the city’s ‘smart lamp posts’
A lack of transparency about facial recognition has fuelled distrust of the government
The New Year in Hong Kong began with a bang — not the usual firework display, which the government cancelled, but the sound of police firing tear gas canisters.
Once again, protesters turned out in force to continue their seven-month demonstration against Beijing’s influence in the nominally autonomous region, the lack of real democracy and police brutality.
Despite a government ban on face masks, the better-prepared wore them to protect against the tear gas. But the masks served another function too: to prevent identification by automated facial-recognition technology.
Over the course of the protests, legislators have repeatedly asked the executive to clarify its use of such technology on the streets but the government has avoided answering the question.
The suspicions around facial recognition in Hong Kong provide a warning of what can happen when a government’s lack of transparency in its use of surveillance tech collides with widespread anger over governance. In the absence of trust, citizens are turning to their own theories of what technology the government is using against them.
Last August, a viral video showed protesters pulling down a “smart lamp post” equipped not just with lights but also cameras and Bluetooth beacons. The government has said that smart lamp posts are not facial recognition-enabled but many are sceptical and have crowdsourced their own analyses of what the posts can do.
The moment the lamp post was felled, protesters scavenged components. Others analysed their functions. One anonymous researcher warned that facial-recognition algorithms could run on any video footage with sufficient resolution, even if the cameras didn’t contain hardware that suggested links to facial-recognition firms. This is correct; as long as the footage can be streamed to another computer, citizens cannot know what is being done to it.
Thus the government is being asked to prove a negative, that it is not running any facial-recognition algorithms on public surveillance footage or passing the footage on to third parties — such as China’s mainland police, who we know are using such algorithms.
The only way that it might prove such a negative is if it had, early on, credibly committed to transparency and to constraints in its use of surveillance technology. Hong Kong’s own Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, which allows people to request their data, does not do the job, as it has broad exemptions for “the prevention or detection of crime”. The problem is Hong Kongers already disagree with their government over what is criminal, and the category of “prevention” is broad and vague.
Other city governments have begun to engage in discussions concerning the boundaries of surveillance. Last year, San Francisco was the first major city to temporarily ban government use of facial recognition by passing a surveillance ordinance. It also ensures that government purchases of other surveillance technology must be approved by an oversight body. Several US cities have or are considering passing similar laws.
Such agreements would change the landscape of state surveillance, not just in Hong Kong or mainland China, but also in the UK and other democracies. Police in London kept quiet their involvement with a clandestine facial-recognition program in King’s Cross until it was revealed by the FT last year.
Other cities may not face the breakdown of trust that has happened in Hong Kong. But placing explicit limits on surveillance would help citizens fight more specific injustices; San Francisco, which has a commitment to not help deport undocumented immigrants, has decided not to share certain data with immigration police. There is also the problem of misidentification by the technology, as well as databases being leaked — a common problem in China, where the government has hastily rolled out facial-recognition-enabled surveillance cameras.
In China, a public debate is now brewing over facial recognition. But whether your government is a one-party autocracy or a functioning democracy, it’s always more effective to start the discussion over surveillance technology before your town has been turned into a “smart city”.