Publisher: The Lens (Michael Isaac Stein)
Date Published: December 18, 2020
Relevant To: Comparative ordinance model: outright bans on facial recognition, predictive policing, characteristic-tracking software, and cell-site simulators, plus lessons on how such ordinances get weakened during the legislative process
Verification Status: Verified (confirmed via full-text fetch)
Notes: New Orleans City Council passed an ordinance (6-1, Councilman Jared Brossett dissenting) banning four specific surveillance technologies: facial recognition, “characteristic recognition and tracking software” (e.g. BriefCam, which the city used until claiming to stop in late 2019), predictive policing, and cell-site simulators (stingrays). A proposed ALPR ban was scrapped from the final version. Passed a month after The Lens reported NOPD had been using facial recognition via FBI/Louisiana State Police partnerships despite years of denial; the city had initially told the ACLU of Louisiana “The Police Department does not employ facial recognition software” before reversing course. The ordinance was significantly watered down from an original version (drafted with Councilman Jason Williams and grassroots group Eye on Surveillance) that would have created comprehensive approval/oversight/reporting processes for the city’s whole surveillance system — those provisions were stripped. Notably, the ordinance still allows the city to use evidence derived from banned tech so long as it wasn’t generated by/with the knowledge of/at the request of the city itself, and requires each department using surveillance tech to designate a Data Protection Officer. Useful case study for BPA on both a “bans specific technologies” ordinance model and the political dynamics of watering-down during passage.