vox--2020-07-03--The 7 best movies you can now watch at home

The July Fourth weekend is usually the biggest movie weekend of the summer , but this year it ’ s been muted by the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic .
And while drive-ins are having a moment , most movie theaters around the country are still closed .
But there are still new movies coming out .
Each weekend since the pandemic began , on streaming services and through “ virtual theatrical ” releases , new and newly available movies have arrived to delight cinephiles of all stripes .
This weekend , seven movies are well worth your notice .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pillars of French cinema , and a film about a young boy attracted to radicalism .
There are four documentaries that cover very different ground : a profile of a civil rights icon , a portrait of a girl in working-class Scotland , a searing exploration of the dangers that Russian LGBTQ+ activists face , and a stranger-than-fiction account of a whole town getting conned .
And one of the biggest Broadway musicals of all time is available , at long last , for everyone to see ( with a subscription to Disney+ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these pique your interest , check out one of the 28 best films from this year so far .
Lin-Manuel Miranda ’ s 2015 musical Hamilton is more than an internet darling — it ’ s one of the most groundbreaking musicals in Broadway history .
And now it ’ s a film , too .
Recorded in June 2016 , the month the show broke records at the Tonys , this film version of Hamilton more or less replicates the experience of watching the show in the theater with the original cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leslie Odom Jr. , Renée Elise Goldsberry , Phillipa Soo , Chris Jackson , Jonathan Groff , Anthony Ramos , and Jasmine Cephas Jones .
That ’ s enough to entice any Hamilton fan , but the movie is a genuinely terrific watch for newbies and old hands alike : Camera close-ups and wide shots offer a better view of the performances than you might have from any one seat in the theater , and the radical effect of casting people of color to play historically white characters is much more clear when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
Hamilton is poised to be the movie of the summer , and feels more vital in 2020 than ever .
How to watch it : Hamilton is streaming on Disney+ .
Civil rights pioneer John Lewis spoke at the March on Washington , marched from Selma to Montgomery , and has served in the House of Representatives since 1987 .
His three-volume graphic novel memoir , March , has won a bevy of awards , including a National Book Award in 2016 for the third installment .
He ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being treated for pancreatic cancer .
So it ’ s more than fitting that he ’ s now the subject of a documentary that traces the broad outlines of his life and career through archival footage , scenes from his tireless trail of campaigning for colleagues like Stacey Abrams , and interviews with Lewis and many of his colleagues .
As documentaries of this sort tend to do , John Lewis : Good Trouble glosses over the details of some of the more interesting and controversial parts of Lewis ’ s career , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Julian Bond , which reveals some important ideological and tactical disagreements among Black voters in Georgia and in the US at large .
Lewis is an important enough figure to history to merit a more revealing portrait in the future .
But John Lewis : Good Trouble is still a valuable and interesting introduction to how and why people fought in the civil rights movement and are still fighting today , and a noble tribute to a man who ’ s been there for all of it .
How to watch it : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to digitally rent or purchase on services including Amazon , iTunes , Google Play , YouTube , and Vudu .
For a complete listing , see the film ’ s website .
Narrowsburg is a bizarre true-life con story , one that ended up roiling an entire small town .
In upstate New York , the tiny hamlet of Narrowsburg one day discovered the arrival of two glamorous strangers , both of whom had connections in the film business .
The strangers launched a film festival ( which , they proclaimed , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) and shot a movie with the whole town ’ s involvement .
Then things got very , very weird .
Director Martha Shane keeps you guessing about what was really going on — Narrowsburg is full of twists — as she crafts a poignant portrait of the allure of show business in American life .
How to watch it : Narrowsburg is available to digitally rent or purchase on Amazon , iTunes , and Vudu .
One of the most overlooked documentaries of 2019 is finally available to watch at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story , a vérité portrait of teenaged Gemma , who lives with her grandfather in Scotland .
Directors Ellen Fiske and Ellinor Hallin follow Gemma for three years as she causes trouble with her friends , raises birds with her grandfather , falls in love , has a baby , and tries to decide what her future holds .
Gemma narrates her own story , explaining what she thinks , feels , and does .
The film is a different sort of study of teenage life than we ’ re used to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I thought often of the films of Andrea Arnold , especially Fish Tank , while watching it . )
And without sentimentality , it draws out the challenges that a girl like Gemma faces in trying to change her life .
How to watch it : Scheme Birds is available to digitally rent or purchase on Amazon , Apple TV , Google Play , or Vimeo .
The Truth is another quiet family drama from Hirokazu Kore-eda ( Shoplifters ) — this time , set in France .
The great film star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ named Fabienne , who experiences a lot of friction in her relationship with her daughter Lumir ( Juliette Binoche ) .
Lumir is a screenwriter who lives with her actor husband ( Ethan Hawke ) and daughter in the US ; she and her family travel to France to celebrate the release of Fabienne ’ s memoir , and sparks fly when it turns out Fabienne ’ s account of the past doesn ’ t match Lumir ’ s memories .
The tale probes the nature of memory , truth , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gently humorous and bittersweet story of love and regret .
How to watch it : The Truth is available for digital rent or purchase on platforms including Amazon , AppleTV , YouTube , Google Play , Vudu , and more .
For a complete listing , see the movie ’ s website .
People who identify as LGBTQ+ experience opposition and difficulty all over the world .
But in the Russian republic of Chechnya — and the Vladimir Putin-backed regime led by strongman Ramzan Kadyrov — the state is abducting and killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which won a prize for editing at Sundance , carefully follows a number of Chechens who are fleeing for their lives and others who try to shelter them and provide passage to countries where they might be safe .
Directed by investigative journalist and award-winning documentarian David France , the film digitally obscures the faces of people who are on the run — a technique to obscure the “ truth ” that becomes all the more powerful when it suddenly becomes part of the story .
How to watch it : Welcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HBO Max .
In films like The Promise ( 1996 ) , The Son ( 2002 ) , and Two Days , One Night ( 2015 ) , the Dardenne brothers , Jean-Pierre and Luc , have told stories about people on the outskirts of French and Belgian society , exploring the ways that poor people , immigrants , and others left on the margins work to stay afloat .
Their latest film , Young Ahmed , is the story of a young boy who becomes radicalized by his imam and tries to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dicey premise .
But the Dardennes handle it deftly , subtly critiquing the notion that a young man who has been radicalized simply needs some exposure to a kindly liberal tolerance to “ see the light.
” Young Ahmed recognizes the complex factors that bring a teenager to that point of embracing dangerous ideologies and the deep-seated reasons someone like Ahmed might respond to men who want to turn him toward hard-line violence .
Where to watch it : Young Ahmed is received its streaming premiere on the Criterion Channel .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The July Fourth weekend is usually the biggest movie weekend of the summer, but this year it’s been muted by the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic. And while drive-ins are having a moment, most movie theaters around the country are still closed.
But there are still new movies coming out. Each weekend since the pandemic began, on streaming services and through “virtual theatrical” releases, new and newly available movies have arrived to delight cinephiles of all stripes.
This weekend, seven movies are well worth your notice. There’s a family drama starring two pillars of French cinema, and a film about a young boy attracted to radicalism. There are four documentaries that cover very different ground: a profile of a civil rights icon, a portrait of a girl in working-class Scotland, a searing exploration of the dangers that Russian LGBTQ+ activists face, and a stranger-than-fiction account of a whole town getting conned. And one of the biggest Broadway musicals of all time is available, at long last, for everyone to see (with a subscription to Disney+).
Or, if none of these pique your interest, check out one of the 28 best films from this year so far.
Lin-Manuel Miranda’s 2015 musical Hamilton is more than an internet darling — it’s one of the most groundbreaking musicals in Broadway history. And now it’s a film, too. Recorded in June 2016, the month the show broke records at the Tonys, this film version of Hamilton more or less replicates the experience of watching the show in the theater with the original cast, including Miranda, Daveed Diggs, Leslie Odom Jr., Renée Elise Goldsberry, Phillipa Soo, Chris Jackson, Jonathan Groff, Anthony Ramos, and Jasmine Cephas Jones. That’s enough to entice any Hamilton fan, but the movie is a genuinely terrific watch for newbies and old hands alike: Camera close-ups and wide shots offer a better view of the performances than you might have from any one seat in the theater, and the radical effect of casting people of color to play historically white characters is much more clear when you’re watching the actors at work. Hamilton is poised to be the movie of the summer, and feels more vital in 2020 than ever.
How to watch it: Hamilton is streaming on Disney+.
John Lewis: Good Trouble
Civil rights pioneer John Lewis spoke at the March on Washington, marched from Selma to Montgomery, and has served in the House of Representatives since 1987. His three-volume graphic novel memoir, March, has won a bevy of awards, including a National Book Award in 2016 for the third installment. He’s also been attacked by Donald Trump and is being treated for pancreatic cancer. So it’s more than fitting that he’s now the subject of a documentary that traces the broad outlines of his life and career through archival footage, scenes from his tireless trail of campaigning for colleagues like Stacey Abrams, and interviews with Lewis and many of his colleagues.
As documentaries of this sort tend to do, John Lewis: Good Trouble glosses over the details of some of the more interesting and controversial parts of Lewis’s career, like his 1986 run for Congress against Julian Bond, which reveals some important ideological and tactical disagreements among Black voters in Georgia and in the US at large. Lewis is an important enough figure to history to merit a more revealing portrait in the future. But John Lewis: Good Trouble is still a valuable and interesting introduction to how and why people fought in the civil rights movement and are still fighting today, and a noble tribute to a man who’s been there for all of it.
How to watch it: John Lewis: Good Trouble is available to digitally rent or purchase on services including Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, YouTube, and Vudu. For a complete listing, see the film’s website.
Narrowsburg
Narrowsburg is a bizarre true-life con story, one that ended up roiling an entire small town. In upstate New York, the tiny hamlet of Narrowsburg one day discovered the arrival of two glamorous strangers, both of whom had connections in the film business. The strangers launched a film festival (which, they proclaimed, would become the “Sundance of the East”) and shot a movie with the whole town’s involvement. Then things got very, very weird. Director Martha Shane keeps you guessing about what was really going on — Narrowsburg is full of twists — as she crafts a poignant portrait of the allure of show business in American life.
How to watch it: Narrowsburg is available to digitally rent or purchase on Amazon, iTunes, and Vudu.
Scheme Birds
One of the most overlooked documentaries of 2019 is finally available to watch at home. Scheme Birds plays like a coming-of-age story, a vérité portrait of teenaged Gemma, who lives with her grandfather in Scotland. Directors Ellen Fiske and Ellinor Hallin follow Gemma for three years as she causes trouble with her friends, raises birds with her grandfather, falls in love, has a baby, and tries to decide what her future holds. Gemma narrates her own story, explaining what she thinks, feels, and does. The film is a different sort of study of teenage life than we’re used to, intimate and raw without manufactured drama. (I thought often of the films of Andrea Arnold, especially Fish Tank, while watching it.) And without sentimentality, it draws out the challenges that a girl like Gemma faces in trying to change her life.
How to watch it: Scheme Birds is available to digitally rent or purchase on Amazon, Apple TV, Google Play, or Vimeo.
The Truth
The Truth is another quiet family drama from Hirokazu Kore-eda (Shoplifters) — this time, set in France. The great film star Catherine Deneuve plays a great film star named Fabienne, who experiences a lot of friction in her relationship with her daughter Lumir (Juliette Binoche). Lumir is a screenwriter who lives with her actor husband (Ethan Hawke) and daughter in the US; she and her family travel to France to celebrate the release of Fabienne’s memoir, and sparks fly when it turns out Fabienne’s account of the past doesn’t match Lumir’s memories. The tale probes the nature of memory, truth, and the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves in a gently humorous and bittersweet story of love and regret.
How to watch it: The Truth is available for digital rent or purchase on platforms including Amazon, AppleTV, YouTube, Google Play, Vudu, and more. For a complete listing, see the movie’s website.
Welcome to Chechnya
People who identify as LGBTQ+ experience opposition and difficulty all over the world. But in the Russian republic of Chechnya — and the Vladimir Putin-backed regime led by strongman Ramzan Kadyrov — the state is abducting and killing them with impunity. Welcome to Chechnya, which won a prize for editing at Sundance, carefully follows a number of Chechens who are fleeing for their lives and others who try to shelter them and provide passage to countries where they might be safe. Directed by investigative journalist and award-winning documentarian David France, the film digitally obscures the faces of people who are on the run — a technique to obscure the “truth” that becomes all the more powerful when it suddenly becomes part of the story.
How to watch it: Welcome to Chechnya is streaming on HBO and HBO Max.
Young Ahmed
In films like The Promise (1996), The Son (2002), and Two Days, One Night (2015), the Dardenne brothers, Jean-Pierre and Luc, have told stories about people on the outskirts of French and Belgian society, exploring the ways that poor people, immigrants, and others left on the margins work to stay afloat. Their latest film, Young Ahmed, is the story of a young boy who becomes radicalized by his imam and tries to kill his teacher, which sounds like a dicey premise. But the Dardennes handle it deftly, subtly critiquing the notion that a young man who has been radicalized simply needs some exposure to a kindly liberal tolerance to “see the light.” Young Ahmed recognizes the complex factors that bring a teenager to that point of embracing dangerous ideologies and the deep-seated reasons someone like Ahmed might respond to men who want to turn him toward hard-line violence.
Where to watch it: Young Ahmed is received its streaming premiere on the Criterion Channel.


vox--2020-07-05--Trump is going all in on divisive culture wars. That might not work this time.

Presidents tend to offer messages of national unity and optimism on Independence Day .
But this weekend , President Donald Trump marked the occasion with a pair of speeches in which he described himself as presiding over a cultural civil war against an insurgent left — and promised to vanquish those on the other side of that war through aggressive use of law enforcement .
In a speech at Mount Rushmore on Friday , Trump warned of a “ far-left fascism ” that is part of a “ merciless campaign to wipe out our history , defame our heroes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children.
” As the crowd before him shouted , “ Four more years , ” the president boasted about deploying federal law enforcement to protect American monuments , a number of which have been pulled down or criticized by antiracist protesters in recent weeks for commemorating historical figures who supported slavery , white supremacy , or colonialism .
In his “ Salute to America ” address on Saturday in Washington , DC , Trump emphasized this message , and proclaimed that he was “ defeating the radical left , the Marxists , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and people who , in many instances , have absolutely no clue what they are doing , ” while pledging to “ safeguard our values.
” “ Such rhetoric is designed to inflame and divide the public , not unite and celebrate , which is the goal of most presidents ’ Independence Day speeches , ” George Edwards III , a scholar of the presidency and professor emeritus at Texas A & M University , told me .
“ There is little doubt that the president is trying to energize his base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s descriptions of the rise of an extremist left — which were often exaggerated or false in their characterizations — are inflammatory in part because they rely on a narrow , nationalistic , and racialized definition of “ our values ” that amounts to a sweeping rejection of the idea that America ’ s history of slavery and white supremacy should be questioned .
And in framing the debate over the monuments this way , the president revived the racialized nostalgia politics that animated his 2016 strategy for mobilizing Republican voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during that election , there are reasons to be doubtful that his tack of fomenting a culture war will in fact galvanize his base in the way he hopes .
Chief among them are that his presidency has been engulfed by crises in the form of an out-of-control pandemic , a historic recession and a fiery national debate over racism .
Polling indicates that the public — including many Republicans — is broadly sympathetic to the protests and doesn ’ t buy into the picture of anti-American chaos that Trump has been trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post-Schar School poll in June found that most Republicans supported protests that emerged after Floyd ’ s death .
And Trump is losing the support of crucial parts of his political base , like older voters and white voters , as the coronavirus wreaks havoc on people ’ s health , mobility , income , and wealth .
These factors likely explain much of why Trump is the worst-polling presidential incumbent at this point in the race in nearly three decades .
In other words , the crises Trump faces suggest he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appealing to the public if he wants to have a decent shot at winning the 2020 election .
But Trump is showing an inability , or at least a reluctance , to adapt to changing times , appearing eager to delve even further into divisive culture wars — and to continue deploying white identity politics and racism as his weapons of choice .
Trump thinks talking about statues is his path to victory In his speeches this weekend , Trump positioned himself as a guardian of American identity , depicting protests against police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly in recent weeks , and have been largely peaceful — in paranoid and cartoonish terms as a “ fascist ” threat to the republic .
It should be noted that Trump ’ s claims of the existence of “ far-left fascism ” are fundamentally incoherent : fascism is a right-wing form of ultranationalism calling for a rebirth of a nation or race , and that has nothing to do with liberal and left-wing calls for an end to police brutality and racism .
But that didn ’ t stop Trump from making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which aimed to sensationalize the issue of protests and statue-toppling .
Speaking at Mount Rushmore , amid peaceful protests led by members of the Sioux Nation meant to underscore the fact the monument was built on stolen and sacred land , Trump promised that the South Dakota monument “ will never be desecrated.
” And he went on to describe the ongoing re-evaluation of public symbols of racism in American life as a threat to civilization .
“ Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history , defame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and indoctrinate our children , ” he said .
“ Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders , deface our most sacred memorials , and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities .
Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this , but some know exactly what they are doing.
” Trump also took issue with “ cancel culture , ” which he described as “ the very definition of totalitarianism.
” “ Make no mistake : this left-wing cultural revolution is designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he claimed , offering his solution : “ Deploying federal law enforcement to protect our monuments , arrest the rioters , and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law.
” In his White House speech the next day , he sounded similar notes about a nation at war from within .
He again warned of an “ angry mob ” hoping to erase American history .
He also said that “ those in the media who falsely and consistently label their opponents as racists ” are the true threats to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
Trump ’ s rhetoric about a nation under siege can be seen as an extension of rhetorical patterns he used during his first presidential campaign .
At the Republican National Convention in 2016 , he warned that “ attacks on our police , and the terrorism in our cities , threaten our very way of life.
” In his inauguration speech , he iconically pledged to put an end to “ American carnage.
” His political modus operandi is to identify a threat within the country and promise to oust it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called “ far-left fascism.
” But there are reasons to think that it won ’ t pay off this time around .
Trump appears to be misreading this historical moment Trump is banking on the idea that he can mobilize his base by seeding fear of an ascendant extremist left without providing any evidence for its existence .
Although efforts by antiracist protesters to topple statues they see as paeans to white supremacy are real , many of the president ’ s claims about the protesters are exaggerated or inaccurate .
But Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t his exaggerations .
It ’ s that he has chosen to vilify a political movement that has been broadly popular , and that American voters have other issues top of mind .
Most Americans ’ perceptions on racism — including many Republicans — have shifted in recent weeks amid ongoing racial justice protests , and much of the public has taken issue with Trump ’ s handling of race relations in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd .
It is evident from polling that Trump is not on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A majority of Americans support taking down Confederate statues , according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll .
Black Lives Matter has won the support of a large majority of voters , including a majority of whites ( who skew Republican ) .
As New York magazine ’ s Eric Levitz points out , in the past month , “ The percentage of Americans who say that ‘ racial discrimination is a serious problem , ’ that ‘ police are more likely to use deadly force against Black people , ’ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get ahead ’ all hit record highs in various tracking polls.
” In June , a Washington Post-Schar School poll found that 53 percent of Republicans supported protests that emerged after Floyd ’ s death .
Strikingly , the poll found that even among Americans who believed the protests were mostly violent — something most Republicans in the survey believed — a majority were supportive of the protests .
And in a recent deep dive into polls documenting presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s increasing lead over Trump , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s handling of race appears to be a fundamental factor : Taken together , these polls suggest that Trump ’ s decision to pursue an aggressive law-and-order rhetorical strategy and paint antiracist protesters as bands of extremists bent on destroying America seems to be out of touch not only with most Americans , but even much of the Republican Party .
Another major issue for Trump ’ s culture war strategy is that it doesn ’ t reckon with the other big crisis defining American life these days : the relentless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic has steadily declined since April , and a Reuters/Ipsos poll in late June found that just 37 percent of Americans approved of the way he has responded to the pandemic .
CNN ’ s polling expert Harry Enten has explained that when a non-economic issue is top of mind for voters — which the coronavirus has been in recent months — then whoever is most trusted on that issue is likely to win the election .
And on that front , Biden has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls .
The final problem for Trump ’ s strategy is that Biden , so far , looks immune to Trump ’ s attempts to tar the Democratic nominee with his fear-mongering about the rise of an extremist left .
A recent Politico/Morning Consult poll shows that just 17 percent of registered voters see Biden as more liberal than most Democrats , and the overwhelming majority — nearly two-thirds — see him as more conservative than , or in line with , mainstream Democrats .
That could change in the future , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perception of himself as a moderate , making it hard for Trump to successfully link him to “ far-left fascism.
” Despite these issues , Trump appears set on using the same playbook that helped him win the 2016 election and develop a devoted political base .
Texas A & M ’ s Edwards said he might be doing so because after three-and-a-half years of attacking his enemies and his use of divisive rhetoric throughout the pandemic , Trump may have no other credible lane .
“ It is probably too late for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Edwards said .
“ He needs enemies and grievances.
” But with the country united in its focus on the coronavirus , and increasingly attuned to calls for racial justice , so far all signs suggest that voters are not as prepared to embrace someone fixated on jousting with political enemies and splitting the electorate with white identity politics as they once were .
The world has changed swiftly and dramatically — political strategy must too .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Presidents tend to offer messages of national unity and optimism on Independence Day. But this weekend, President Donald Trump marked the occasion with a pair of speeches in which he described himself as presiding over a cultural civil war against an insurgent left — and promised to vanquish those on the other side of that war through aggressive use of law enforcement.
In a speech at Mount Rushmore on Friday, Trump warned of a “far-left fascism” that is part of a “merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.” As the crowd before him shouted, “Four more years,” he boasted about deploying federal law enforcement to protect American monuments, a number of which have been pulled down or criticized by anti-racist protesters in recent weeks for commemorating historical figures who supported slavery, white supremacy, or colonialism.
In his “Salute to America” address on Saturday in Washington, DC, Trump emphasized this message, and proclaimed that he was “defeating the radical left, the Marxists, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters, and people who, in many instances, have absolutely no clue what they are doing,” while pledging to “safeguard our values.”
“Such rhetoric is designed to inflame and divide the public, not unite and celebrate, which is the goal of most presidents’ Independence Day speeches,” George Edwards III, a scholar of the presidency and professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, told me. “There is little doubt that the president is trying to energize his base in anticipation of the November election.”
Trump’s descriptions of the rise of an extremist left — which were often exaggerated or false in their characterizations — are inflammatory in part because they rely on a narrow, nationalistic, and racialized definition of “our values” that amounts to a sweeping rejection of the idea that America’s history of slavery and white supremacy should be questioned. And in framing the debate over the monuments this way, the president revived the racialized nostalgia politics that animated his 2016 strategy for mobilizing Republican voters.
Although that proved a successful strategy during that election, there are reasons to be doubtful that his tack of fomenting a culture war will in fact galvanize his base in the way he hopes. Chief among them is that his presidency has been engulfed by crises in the form of an out-of-control pandemic, a historic recession, and a fiery national debate over racism.
Polling indicates that the public — including many Republicans — is broadly sympathetic to the protests and doesn’t buy into the picture of anti-American chaos that Trump has been trying to paint.
For instance, a Washington Post-Schar School poll in June found that most Republicans supported protests that emerged after Floyd’s death. And Trump is losing the support of crucial parts of his political base, like older voters and white voters, as the coronavirus wreaks havoc on people’s health, mobility, income, and wealth. These factors likely explain much of why Trump is the worst-polling presidential incumbent at this point in the race in nearly three decades.
In other words, the crises Trump faces suggest he needs to try a new approach to appealing to the public if he wants to have a decent shot at winning the 2020 election. But Trump is showing an inability, or at least a reluctance, to adapt to changing times, appearing eager to delve even further into divisive culture wars — and to continue deploying white identity politics and racism as his weapons of choice.
Trump thinks talking about statues is his path to victory
In his speeches this weekend, Trump positioned himself as a guardian of American identity, depicting protests against police brutality and racism — which have slowed significantly in recent weeks, and have been largely peaceful — in paranoid and cartoonish terms as a “fascist” threat to the republic.
It should be noted that Trump’s claims of the existence of “far-left fascism” are fundamentally incoherent: Fascism is a right-wing form of ultranationalism calling for a rebirth of a nation or race, and has nothing to do with liberal and left-wing calls for an end to police brutality and racism. But that didn’t stop Trump from making it the central message of his speeches, which aimed to sensationalize the issue of protests and statue-toppling.
Speaking at Mount Rushmore, amid peaceful protests led by members of the Sioux Nation meant to underscore the fact the monument was built on stolen and sacred land, Trump promised that the South Dakota monument “will never be desecrated.” He went on to describe the ongoing reevaluation of public symbols of racism in American life as a threat to civilization.
“Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children,” he said. “Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing.”
A somnambulant Trump tries to frame the threat against monuments as the biggest danger America faces right now pic.twitter.com/IJjB42LveZ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 4, 2020
Trump also took issue with “cancel culture,” which he described as “the very definition of totalitarianism.”
“Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution,” he claimed, offering his solution: “Deploying federal law enforcement to protect our monuments, arrest the rioters, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law.”
In his White House speech the next day, he sounded similar notes about a nation at war from within. He again warned of an “angry mob” hoping to erase American history. He also said that “those in the media who falsely and consistently label their opponents as racists” are the true threats to the political unity that he desires for the country.
Trump accuses the media of slander by (accurately) describing him as racist pic.twitter.com/8rzyskmkyT — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 4, 2020
Trump’s rhetoric about a nation under siege can be seen as an extension of rhetorical patterns he used during his first presidential campaign. At the Republican National Convention in 2016, he warned that “attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life.” In his inauguration speech, he pledged to put an end to “American carnage.” His political modus operandi is to identify a threat within the country and promise to oust it, and his latest target is now so-called “far-left fascism.”
But there are reasons to think that it won’t pay off this time around.
Trump appears to be misreading this historical moment
Trump is banking on the idea that he can mobilize his base by seeding fear of an ascendant extremist left without providing any evidence for its existence. Although efforts by anti-racist protesters to topple statues they see as paeans to white supremacy are real, many of the president’s claims about the protesters are exaggerated or inaccurate.
But Trump’s biggest electoral problem here isn’t his exaggerations. It’s that he has chosen to vilify a political movement that has been broadly popular, and that American voters have other issues top of mind.
Most Americans’ perceptions on racism — including the perceptions of many Republicans — have shifted in recent weeks amid ongoing racial justice protests, and much of the public has taken issue with Trump’s handling of race relations in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd.
It is evident from polling that Trump is not on the winning side of the culture war. A majority of Americans support taking down Confederate statues, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll. Black Lives Matter has won the support of a large majority of voters, including a majority of white voters (who skew Republican). As New York magazine’s Eric Levitz points out, in the past month, “The percentage of Americans who say that ‘racial discrimination is a serious problem,’ that ‘police are more likely to use deadly force against Black people,’ and that ‘white people are more likely to get ahead’ all hit record highs in various tracking polls.”
In June, a Washington Post-Schar School poll found that 53 percent of Republicans supported the protests that emerged after Floyd’s death. Strikingly, the poll found that even among Americans who believed the protests were mostly violent — something most Republicans in the survey believed — a majority were supportive of the protests.
And in a recent deep dive into polls documenting presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s increasing lead over Trump, the Atlantic’s David Graham argues that Trump’s handling of race appears to be a fundamental factor:
Polls have consistently shown that Americans disapprove of [Trump’s] response to protests of police violence and believe that he has worsened race relations. In the New York Times/Siena poll, race relations (33 percent) and the protests (29 percent) are the only areas where issue approval lags behind his overall vote preference. In the Harvard/Harris poll, the same two areas earn Trump his worst marks of any issue, though they are still slightly higher than his expected vote.
Taken together, these polls suggest that Trump’s decision to pursue an aggressive law-and-order rhetorical strategy and paint anti-racist protesters as bands of extremists bent on destroying America seems to be out of touch not only with most Americans, but even much of the Republican Party.
Another major issue for Trump’s culture war strategy is that it doesn’t reckon with the other big crisis defining American life these days: the relentless spread of the coronavirus.
Voter approval of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic has steadily declined since April, and a Reuters/Ipsos poll in late June found that just 37 percent of Americans approved of the way he has responded to the pandemic. CNN’s polling expert Harry Enten has explained that when a non-economic issue is top of mind for voters — which the coronavirus has been in recent months — then whoever is most trusted on that issue is likely to win the election. And on that front, Biden has been favored by a sizable margin in multiple polls.
The final problem for Trump’s strategy is that Biden, so far, looks immune to Trump’s attempts to tar the Democratic nominee with his fearmongering about the rise of an extremist left. A recent Politico/Morning Consult poll shows that just 17 percent of registered voters see Biden as more liberal than most Democrats, and the overwhelming majority — nearly two-thirds — see him as more conservative than, or in line with, mainstream Democrats. That could change in the future, but Biden has consistently made efforts to cultivate perception of himself as a moderate, making it hard for Trump to successfully link him to “far-left fascism.”
Despite these issues, Trump appears set on using the same playbook that helped him win the 2016 election and develop a devoted political base. Texas A&M’s Edwards said he might be doing so because after three and a half years of attacking his enemies and his use of divisive rhetoric throughout the pandemic, Trump may have no other credible lane.
“It is probably too late for him to present himself as a uniter,” Edwards said. “He needs enemies and grievances.”
But with the country united in its focus on the coronavirus, and increasingly attuned to calls for racial justice, so far all signs suggest that voters are not as prepared to embrace someone fixated on jousting with political enemies and splitting the electorate with white identity politics as they once were. The world has changed swiftly and dramatically — political strategy must too.


vox--2020-07-06--How can we ban facial recognition when it’s already everywhere?

Facial recognition is having a reckoning .
Recent protests against racism and police brutality have shined a light on the surveillance tools available to law enforcement , and major tech companies are temporarily backing away from facial recognition and urging federal officials to step in and regulate .
Late last month , we learned of the first known false arrest caused by a faulty facial recognition system , involving a Black man in Michigan identified by software that Detroit ’ s police chief later admitted had a 96 percent misidentification rate .
And a policy group from the Association for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 100,000 members , has called for the suspension of corporate and government use of the technology , citing concerns that its built-in biases could seriously endanger people .
There ’ s also pressure from Congress .
Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Ayanna Pressley and Sens .
Jeff Merkley and Ed Markey have proposed new legislation that would prohibit federal government use of facial recognition and encourage state and local governments to do the same .
It ’ s one of the most sweeping proposals to limit the controversial biometric technology in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial justice and privacy advocates .
All of this follows a move by several major technology companies , including IBM , Amazon , and Microsoft , to pause or limit law enforcement ’ s access to their own facial recognition programs .
But amid the focus on government use of facial recognition , many companies are still integrating the technology into a wide range of consumer products .
In June , Apple announced that it would be incorporating facial recognition into its HomeKit accessories and that its Face ID technology would be expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic , some firms have raced to put forward more contactless biometric tech , such as facial recognition-enabled access control .
“ When we think about all of these seemingly innocuous ways that our images are being captured , we have to remember we do not have the laws to protect us , ” Mutale Nkonde , a fellow at Harvard Law School ’ s Berkman Klein Center , told Recode .
“ And so those images could be used against you.
” The convenience that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facial recognition features stands in stark contrast to the growing pressure to regulate and even ban the technology ’ s use by the government .
That ’ s a sign that officials looking to effectively regulate the tech will have to take into account its range of uses , from facial recognition that unlocks a smartphone to the dystopian-sounding databases operated by law enforcement .
After all , when earlier this year Recode asked Sen. Jeff Merkley what inspired his push to regulate the technology , he pointed out how quickly the Photos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his family .
He was struck by how easily law enforcement could be able to track people with the technology , but also how powerful it had already become on his own device .
“ You can hit that person , and every picture that you ’ ve taken with that person in it will show up , ” Merkley said at the time .
“ I ’ m just going , ‘ Wow.
’ ” Facial recognition is becoming more widespread in consumer devices One of the most popular uses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often used for logging into electronic devices .
Rather than typing in a passcode , a front-facing camera on the phone snaps a picture of the user and then deploys facial recognition algorithms to confirm their identity .
It ’ s a convenient ( though not completely foolproof ) feature made popular when Apple launched Face ID with the iPhone X in 2017 .
Many other phone companies , including Samsung , LG , and Motorola , now provide facial recognition-based phone unlocking , and the technology is increasingly being used for easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and apps of all kinds .
But some consumer-focused applications of facial recognition go beyond verification , meaning they ’ re not just trying to identify their own users but also other people .
One early example of this is Facebook ’ s facial recognition-based photo tagging , which scans through photos users post to the platform in order to suggest certain friends they can tag .
Similar technology is also at work in apps like Google Photos and Apple Photos , both of which can automatically identify and tag subjects in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tagging feature in its Photos app to power the new facial recognition feature in HomeKit-enabled security cameras and smart doorbells .
Faces that show up in the camera feed can be cross-referenced with the database from the Photos app , so that you ’ re notified when , for instance , a specific friend is knocking on your door .
Google ’ s Nest cameras and other facial recognition-enabled security systems offer similar features .
Face-based identification is also popping up in some smart TVs that can recognize which member of a household @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facial recognition is being used for identification and verification in a growing number of devices , but there will likely be possibilities for the technology that go beyond those two consumer applications .
The company HireVue scans faces with artificial intelligence to evaluate job applicants .
Some cars , like the Subaru Forester , use biometrics and cameras to track whether drivers are staying focused on the road , and several companies are exploring software that can sense emotion in a face , a feature that could be used to monitor drivers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
“ In the context of self-driving cars , they want to see if the driver is tired .
And the idea is if the driver is tired then the car will take over , ” said Nkonde , who also runs the nonprofit AI for the People .
“ The problem is , we don ’ t [ all ] emote in the same way .
“ The blurry line between facial recognition for home security and private surveillance for police Facial recognition systems have three primary ingredients : a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an algorithm that ’ s trained to match faces across different images .
These algorithms can vary widely in their accuracy and , as researchers like MIT ’ s Joy Buolamwini have documented , have been shown disproportionately inaccurate based on categories like gender and race .
Still , facial recognition systems can differ in the size of their databases — that is , how many people a system can identify — as well as by the number of cameras or images they have access to .
Face ID is an example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verification .
The system checks that a user ’ s face matches up with the face that ’ s trying to open the device .
For Face ID , the details of an individual user ’ s face have been previously registered on the device .
As such , the Apple algorithm is simply answering the question of whether or not the person is the phone ’ s user .
It is not designed to identify a large number of people .
Only one user ’ s biometric information is involved , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biometric data to the cloud ; it remains on the user ’ s device .
When more than one person is involved , facial recognition-based identity verification is more complicated .
Take Facebook ’ s facial recognition-based photo tagging , for instance .
It scans through a user ’ s photos to identify their friends , so it ’ s not just identifying the user , which is Face ID ’ s only job .
It ’ s trying to spot any of the user ’ s friends who have opted in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says it doesn ’ t share peoples ’ facial templates with anyone , but it took years for the company to give users control over the feature .
Facebook failed to get users ’ permission before implementing the photo-tagging feature back in 2010 ; this year , the company agreed to pay $ 550 billion to settle a lawsuit over violating users ’ privacy .
Facebook did not start asking users to opt in until 2019 .
The question of consent becomes downright problematic in the context of security camera footage .
Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other devices can let users create albums of familiar faces so they can get a notification when the camera ’ s facial recognition technology spots one of those people .
According to Apple , the new HomeKit facial recognition feature lets users turn on notifications for when people tagged in their Photos app appear on camera .
It also lets them set alerts for people who frequently come to their doorway , like a dog-walker , but are not in their photo library app .
Apple says the identification all happens locally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feature is similar to the familiar face detection feature that can be used with Google ’ s Nest doorbell and security cameras .
But use of the feature , which is turned off by default , is somewhat murky .
Google warns users that , depending on the laws where they live , they may need to get the consent of those they add notifications for , and some may not be able to use it at all .
For instance , Google does not make the feature available in Illinois , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Privacy Act requires explicit permission for the collection of biometric data .
( This law was at the center of the recent $ 550 billion Facebook settlement . )
Google says its users ’ face libraries are “ stored in the cloud , where it is encrypted in transit and at rest , and faces aren ’ t shared beyond their structure.
” So Google- and Apple-powered security cameras are explicitly geared to consumers , and the databases used by their facial recognition algorithms are more or less limited .
The line between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for powerful police surveillance tools , however , becomes blurred with the security systems made by Ring .
Ring , which is owned by Amazon , partners with police departments , and while Ring says its products do not currently use facial recognition technology , multiple reports indicate that the company sought to build facial recognition-based neighborhood watchlists .
Ring has also distributed surveys to beta testers to see how they would feel about facial recognition features .
The scope of these partnerships is worrisome enough that on Thursday Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked for more information about Ring ’ s potential facial recognition integrations , among other questions about the product ’ s long-standing problem with racism .
So it seems that as facial recognition systems become more ambitious — as their databases become larger and their algorithms are tasked with more difficult jobs — they become more problematic .
Matthew Guariglia , a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation , told Recode that facial recognition needs to be evaluated on a “ sliding scale of harm.
” When the technology is used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its time in your pocket , not scanning through public spaces .
“ A Ring camera , on the other hand , isn ’ t deployed just for the purpose of looking at your face , ” Guariglia said .
“ If facial recognition was enabled , that ’ d be looking at the faces of every pedestrian who walked by and could be identifying them.
” So it ’ s hardly a surprise that officials are most aggressively pushing to limit the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement .
Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to a tremendous amount of camera footage but also incredibly large face databases .
In fact , the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology found in 2016 that more than half of Americans are in a facial recognition database , which can include mug shots or simply profile pictures taken at the DMV .
And recently , the scope of face databases available to police has grown even larger .
The controversial startup Clearview AI claims to have mined the web for billions of photos posted online and on social media to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which it has made available to law enforcement agencies .
According to Jake Laperruque , senior counsel at the Project on Government Oversight , this represents a frightening future for facial recognition technology .
“ Its effects , when it ’ s in government ’ s hands , can be really severe , ” Laperruque said .
“ It can be really severe if it doesn ’ t work , and you have false IDs that suddenly become a lead that become the basis of a whole case and could cause someone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ And it can be really severe if it does work well and if it ’ s being used to catalog lists of people who are at protests or a political rally.
” The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act recently introduced on Capitol Hill is sweeping .
It would prohibit federal use of not only facial recognition but also other types of biometric technologies , such as voice recognition and gait recognition , until Congress passes another law regulating the technology .
The bill follows other proposals to limit government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would require a court-issued warrant to use facial recognition and another that would limit biometrics in federally assisted housing .
Some local governments , like San Francisco , have also limited their own acquisition of the technology .
So what about facial recognition when it ’ s used on people ’ s personal devices or by private companies ?
Congress has discussed the use of commercial facial recognition and artificial intelligence more broadly .
A bill called the Commercial Facial Recognition Privacy Act would require the explicit consent of companies collecting peoples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Accountability Act would require large companies to check their artificial intelligence , including facial recognition systems , for bias .
But the ubiquitous nature of facial recognition means that regulating the technology will inevitably require piecemeal legislation and attention to detail so that specific use cases don ’ t get overlooked .
San Francisco , for example , had to amend its facial recognition ordinance after it accidentally made police-department-owned iPhones illegal .
When Boston passed its recent facial recognition ordinance , it created an exclusion for facial recognition used for logging into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The mechanisms to regulators are so different , ” said Brian Hofer , who helped craft San Francisco ’ s facial recognition ban , adding that he ’ s now looking at creating local laws modeled after Illinois ’ Biometric Information Privacy Act that focus more on consumers .
“ The laws are so different it would be probably impossible to write a clean , clearly understood bill regulating both consumer and government.
” A single law regulating facial recognition technology might not be enough .
Researchers from the Algorithmic Justice League @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificial intelligence , have called for a more comprehensive approach .
They argue that the technology should be regulated and controlled by a federal office .
In a May proposal , the researchers outlined how the Food and Drug Administration could serve as a model for a new agency that would be able to adapt to a wide range of government , corporate , and private uses of the technology .
This could provide a regulatory framework to protect consumers from what they buy , including devices that come with facial recognition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognition technology stands to normalize a form of surveillance .
As Rochester Institute of Technology professor Evan Selinger argues , “ As people adapt to routinely using any facial scanning system and it fades to the background as yet another unremarkable aspect of contemporary digitally mediated life , their desires and beliefs can become reengineered.
” And so , even if there is a ban on law enforcement using facial recognition and it ’ s effective to a degree , the technology is still becoming a part of everyday life .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Facial recognition is having a reckoning. Recent protests against racism and police brutality have shined a light on the surveillance tools available to law enforcement, and major tech companies are temporarily backing away from facial recognition and urging federal officials to step in and regulate.
Late last month, we learned of the first known false arrest caused by a faulty facial recognition system, involving a Black man in Michigan identified by software that Detroit’s police chief later admitted had a 96 percent misidentification rate. And a policy group from the Association for Computing Machinery, a computing society with nearly 100,000 members, has called for the suspension of corporate and government use of the technology, citing concerns that its built-in biases could seriously endanger people.
There’s also pressure from Congress. Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Ayanna Pressley and Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ed Markey have proposed new legislation that would prohibit federal government use of facial recognition and encourage state and local governments to do the same. It’s one of the most sweeping proposals to limit the controversial biometric technology in the United States yet and has been hailed by racial justice and privacy advocates.
All of this follows a move by several major technology companies, including IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft, to pause or limit law enforcement’s access to their own facial recognition programs.
But amid the focus on government use of facial recognition, many companies are still integrating the technology into a wide range of consumer products. In June, Apple announced that it would be incorporating facial recognition into its HomeKit accessories and that its Face ID technology would be expanded to support logging into sites on Safari. In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, some firms have raced to put forward more contactless biometric tech, such as facial recognition-enabled access control.
“When we think about all of these seemingly innocuous ways that our images are being captured, we have to remember we do not have the laws to protect us,” Mutale Nkonde, a fellow at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Klein Center, told Recode. “And so those images could be used against you.”
The convenience that many find in consumer devices equipped with facial recognition features stands in stark contrast to the growing pressure to regulate and even ban the technology’s use by the government. That’s a sign that officials looking to effectively regulate the tech will have to take into account its range of uses, from facial recognition that unlocks a smartphone to the dystopian-sounding databases operated by law enforcement.
After all, when earlier this year Recode asked Sen. Jeff Merkley what inspired his push to regulate the technology, he pointed out how quickly the Photos app on his iPhone could identify members of his family. He was struck by how easily law enforcement could be able to track people with the technology, but also how powerful it had already become on his own device.
“You can hit that person, and every picture that you’ve taken with that person in it will show up,” Merkley said at the time. “I’m just going, ‘Wow.’”
Facial recognition is becoming more widespread in consumer devices
One of the most popular uses of facial recognition is verification, which is often used for logging into electronic devices. Rather than typing in a passcode, a front-facing camera on the phone snaps a picture of the user and then deploys facial recognition algorithms to confirm their identity. It’s a convenient (though not completely foolproof) feature made popular when Apple launched Face ID with the iPhone X in 2017. Many other phone companies, including Samsung, LG, and Motorola, now provide facial recognition-based phone unlocking, and the technology is increasingly being used for easier log-ins on gaming consoles, laptops, and apps of all kinds.
But some consumer-focused applications of facial recognition go beyond verification, meaning they’re not just trying to identify their own users but also other people. One early example of this is Facebook’s facial recognition-based photo tagging, which scans through photos users post to the platform in order to suggest certain friends they can tag. Similar technology is also at work in apps like Google Photos and Apple Photos, both of which can automatically identify and tag subjects in a photo.
Apple is actually using the tagging feature in its Photos app to power the new facial recognition feature in HomeKit-enabled security cameras and smart doorbells. Faces that show up in the camera feed can be cross-referenced with the database from the Photos app, so that you’re notified when, for instance, a specific friend is knocking on your door. Google’s Nest cameras and other facial recognition-enabled security systems offer similar features. Face-based identification is also popping up in some smart TVs that can recognize which member of a household is watching and suggest tailored content.
Facial recognition is being used for identification and verification in a growing number of devices, but there will likely be possibilities for the technology that go beyond those two consumer applications. The company HireVue scans faces with artificial intelligence to evaluate job applicants. Some cars, like the Subaru Forester, use biometrics and cameras to track whether drivers are staying focused on the road, and several companies are exploring software that can sense emotion in a face, a feature that could be used to monitor drivers. But that can introduce new bias problems, too.
“In the context of self-driving cars, they want to see if the driver is tired. And the idea is if the driver is tired then the car will take over,” said Nkonde, who also runs the nonprofit AI for the People. “The problem is, we don’t [all] emote in the same way. “
The blurry line between facial recognition for home security and private surveillance for police
Facial recognition systems have three primary ingredients: a source image, a database, and an algorithm that’s trained to match faces across different images. These algorithms can vary widely in their accuracy and, as researchers like MIT’s Joy Buolamwini have documented, have been shown disproportionately inaccurate based on categories like gender and race. Still, facial recognition systems can differ in the size of their databases — that is, how many people a system can identify — as well as by the number of cameras or images they have access to.
Face ID is an example of a facial recognition technology used for identity verification. The system checks that a user’s face matches up with the face that’s trying to open the device. For Face ID, the details of an individual user’s face have been previously registered on the device. As such, the Apple algorithm is simply answering the question of whether or not the person is the phone’s user. It is not designed to identify a large number of people. Only one user’s biometric information is involved, and importantly, Apple does not send that biometric data to the cloud; it remains on the user’s device.
When more than one person is involved, facial recognition-based identity verification is more complicated. Take Facebook’s facial recognition-based photo tagging, for instance. It scans through a user’s photos to identify their friends, so it’s not just identifying the user, which is Face ID’s only job. It’s trying to spot any of the user’s friends who have opted in to the facial recognition-based tagging feature. Facebook says it doesn’t share peoples’ facial templates with anyone, but it took years for the company to give users control over the feature. Facebook failed to get users’ permission before implementing the photo-tagging feature back in 2010; this year, the company agreed to pay $550 million to settle a lawsuit over violating users’ privacy. Facebook did not start asking users to opt in until 2019.
The question of consent becomes downright problematic in the context of security camera footage. Google Nest Cams, Apple HomeKit cameras, and other devices can let users create albums of familiar faces so they can get a notification when the camera’s facial recognition technology spots one of those people. According to Apple, the new HomeKit facial recognition feature lets users turn on notifications for when people tagged in their Photos app appear on camera. It also lets them set alerts for people who frequently come to their doorway, like a dog-walker, but are not in their photo library app. Apple says the identification all happens locally on the devices.
The new Apple feature is similar to the familiar face detection feature that can be used with Google’s Nest doorbell and security cameras. But use of the feature, which is turned off by default, is somewhat murky. Google warns users that, depending on the laws where they live, they may need to get the consent of those they add notifications for, and some may not be able to use it at all. For instance, Google does not make the feature available in Illinois, where the state’s strict Biometric Information Privacy Act requires explicit permission for the collection of biometric data. (This law was at the center of the recent $550 million Facebook settlement.) Google says its users’ face libraries are “stored in the cloud, where it is encrypted in transit and at rest, and faces aren’t shared beyond their structure.”
So Google- and Apple-powered security cameras are explicitly geared to consumers, and the databases used by their facial recognition algorithms are more or less limited.
The line between consumer tech like this and the potential for powerful police surveillance tools, however, becomes blurred with the security systems made by Ring. Ring, which is owned by Amazon, partners with police departments, and while Ring says its products do not currently use facial recognition technology, multiple reports indicate that the company sought to build facial recognition-based neighborhood watchlists. Ring has also distributed surveys to beta testers to see how they would feel about facial recognition features. The scope of these partnerships is worrisome enough that on Thursday Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, head of the House Oversight Committee, asked for more information about Ring’s potential facial recognition integrations, among other questions about the product’s long-standing problem with racism.
So it seems that as facial recognition systems become more ambitious — as their databases become larger and their algorithms are tasked with more difficult jobs — they become more problematic. Matthew Guariglia, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Recode that facial recognition needs to be evaluated on a “sliding scale of harm.”
When the technology is used in your phone, it spends most of its time in your pocket, not scanning through public spaces. “A Ring camera, on the other hand, isn’t deployed just for the purpose of looking at your face,” Guariglia said. “If facial recognition was enabled, that’d be looking at the faces of every pedestrian who walked by and could be identifying them.”
So it’s hardly a surprise that officials are most aggressively pushing to limit the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement. Police departments and similar agencies not only have access to a tremendous amount of camera footage but also incredibly large face databases. In fact, the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology found in 2016 that more than half of Americans are in a facial recognition database, which can include mug shots or simply profile pictures taken at the DMV.
And recently, the scope of face databases available to police has grown even larger. The controversial startup Clearview AI claims to have mined the web for billions of photos posted online and on social media to create a massive facial recognition database, which it has made available to law enforcement agencies. According to Jake Laperruque, senior counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, this represents a frightening future for facial recognition technology.
“Its effects, when it’s in government’s hands, can be really severe,” Laperruque said. “It can be really severe if it doesn’t work, and you have false IDs that suddenly become a lead that become the basis of a whole case and could cause someone to get stopped or arrested.”
He added, “And it can be really severe if it does work well and if it’s being used to catalog lists of people who are at protests or a political rally.”
Regulating facial recognition will be piecemeal
The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act recently introduced on Capitol Hill is sweeping. It would prohibit federal use of not only facial recognition but also other types of biometric technologies, such as voice recognition and gait recognition, until Congress passes another law regulating the technology. The bill follows other proposals to limit government use of the technology, including one that would require a court-issued warrant to use facial recognition and another that would limit biometrics in federally assisted housing. Some local governments, like San Francisco, have also limited their own acquisition of the technology.
So what about facial recognition when it’s used on people’s personal devices or by private companies? Congress has discussed the use of commercial facial recognition and artificial intelligence more broadly. A bill called the Commercial Facial Recognition Privacy Act would require the explicit consent of companies collecting peoples’ biometric information, and the Algorithmic Accountability Act would require large companies to check their artificial intelligence, including facial recognition systems, for bias.
But the ubiquitous nature of facial recognition means that regulating the technology will inevitably require piecemeal legislation and attention to detail so that specific use cases don’t get overlooked. San Francisco, for example, had to amend its facial recognition ordinance after it accidentally made police-department-owned iPhones illegal. When Boston passed its recent facial recognition ordinance, it created an exclusion for facial recognition used for logging into personal devices like laptops and phones.
“The mechanisms to regulators are so different,” said Brian Hofer, who helped craft San Francisco’s facial recognition ban, adding that he’s now looking at creating local laws modeled after Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act that focus more on consumers. “The laws are so different it would be probably impossible to write a clean, clearly understood bill regulating both consumer and government.”
A single law regulating facial recognition technology might not be enough. Researchers from the Algorithmic Justice League, an organization that focuses on equitable artificial intelligence, have called for a more comprehensive approach. They argue that the technology should be regulated and controlled by a federal office. In a May proposal, the researchers outlined how the Food and Drug Administration could serve as a model for a new agency that would be able to adapt to a wide range of government, corporate, and private uses of the technology. This could provide a regulatory framework to protect consumers from what they buy, including devices that come with facial recognition.
Meanwhile, the growing ubiquity of facial recognition technology stands to normalize a form of surveillance. As Rochester Institute of Technology professor Evan Selinger argues, “As people adapt to routinely using any facial scanning system and it fades to the background as yet another unremarkable aspect of contemporary digitally mediated life, their desires and beliefs can become reengineered.”
And so, even if there is a ban on law enforcement using facial recognition and it’s effective to a degree, the technology is still becoming a part of everyday life. We’ll eventually have to deal with its consequences.
Correction: An earlier version of this story cited an incorrect amount for Facebook’s user privacy settlement. The amount paid was $550 million.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.