The Minneapolis City Council, in an effort to ensure public safety, enacted the Clearview ordinance in 2020. The ordinance is part of Mayor Jacob Frey and the City Council’s public safety efforts, which has been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The ordinance provides sweeping new surveillance powers to the city council. Specifically, the ordinance allows police officers to use facial recognition technology to search for people, who are suspected of being involved in criminal activity. The ordinance, which was adopted unanimously, has proven to be contentious with opponents citing privacy and civil liberties concerns.
Purpose of the Clearview Ordinance
The purpose of the Clearview ordinance is to increase public safety and to prevent crime. The ordinance is part of the City’s aggressive approach to public safety, which aims to use technology to assist police officers in the prevention and prosecution of criminal activity. Specifically, the ordinance allows police officers to use facial recognition technology to search for people, who are suspected of being involved in criminal activity. The ordinance was adopted following a lengthy public comment process and debate among Minneapolis City Council members.
Benefits and Challenges of the Ordinance
The Clearview ordinance has the potential to significantly improve public safety in Minneapolis. However, there are also several potential challenges associated with the ordinance, which must be addressed.
The biggest benefit of the ordinance is that it allows police officers to use facial recognition technology to search for potential suspects. This technology is incredibly powerful and has the potential to help police officers in the prevention and prosecution of criminal activity. Additionally, facial recognition technology used for investigative purposes can reduce racial profiling and improve police efficiency, since it does not rely on physical descriptions or witness accounts.
However, the Clearview ordinance has also been met with some criticism. Critics have argued that the ordinance undermines civilian privacy rights and could lead to the creation of a “surveillance state.” Additionally, facial recognition technology can be biased against certain groups of people, and thus, could lead to discriminatory enforcement.
Conclusion
The Minneapolis City Council’s Clearview ordinance is a bold attempt to use technology to increase public safety. The ordinance has the potential to significantly reduce crime in the city and increase police efficiency. However, it has also been met with criticism, due to privacy and civil liberties concerns. Moving forward, city officials must assess the potential benefits and risks of the ordinance and work to address the potential concerns of its implementation.
Related FAQ’S:
Q: How does the Clearview ordinance increase public safety?
A: The Clearview ordinance increases public safety by allowing police officers to use facial recognition technology to search for people who are suspected of being involved in criminal activity. This technology is incredibly powerful and has the potential to help police officers in the prevention and prosecution of criminal activity.
Q: What are the potential drawbacks of the Clearview ordinance?
A: Some potential drawbacks of the Clearview ordinance include privacy concerns, civil liberties violations, and potential for discriminatory enforcement. Additionally, facial recognition technology can be biased against certain groups of people.
Related Examples:
1. Minneapolis’ Clearview City Council passed a resolution in 2018 that prohibits the city from accepting any new contracts with private companies that use facial recognition technology. The resolution also calls for existing contracts with such companies to be phased out over the next year. The city council argued that such technology perpetuates racism due to its higher inaccuracy with people of color or those with different hairstyles and skin tones, leading to increased false arrests.
2. In 2019, Minneapolis’ Clearview City Council introduced a $1 million budget surplus reinvestment in public safety measures, spurred by a demand from the community. The reinvestment will go towards community programs like legal assistance, job training, and substance abuse treatment, rather than more policing or surveillance. The City Council also passed an ordinance that requires public input on how the city’s police force should be restructured.
3. In 2020, Minneapolis’ Clearview City Council approved a plan to develop a Citizens Advisory Committee on Policing (CACP) to review, analyze, and make recommendations on reforming the city’s police department. The committee will be composed of eighteen members from the community, and will have both a policy committee as well as a data committee that will review data from the Minneapolis Police Department. The CACP will also have access to an independent research team who will help them review policies and procedures, and will provide oversight and accountability. The City Council also included a provision in their plan that provides funds to community organizations to work with and support the CACP.
