Milwaukee Grapples With Facial Recognition Technology Amidst Privacy Concerns and Police Upgrades

Table of Contents

Add a header to begin generating the table of contents

Milwaukee County is currently embroiled in a contentious debate over the proposed implementation of facial recognition technology by both the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). While law enforcement agencies highlight its potential to solve violent crimes and enhance efficiency, civil liberties advocates and community members raise significant concerns about privacy, accuracy, and potential misuse, particularly regarding disproportionate impacts on communities of color.

Key Takeaways

Milwaukee County supervisors are seeking a regulatory plan for facial recognition technology by May 2026.
Both MCSO and MPD are considering agreements with Biometrica, a company offering facial recognition software.
Concerns include data sharing with third-party companies, potential for federal agency access (like ICE), and documented inaccuracies in identifying non-white faces.
Law enforcement cites successful case examples where the technology aided in identifying suspects in violent crimes.
Community members express a lack of trust in police and fear the technology could exacerbate existing issues.

The Debate Over Facial Recognition

The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors recently passed a resolution requiring the MCSO to collaborate with partners and community stakeholders to develop a plan for regulating the potential use of facial recognition technology. This decision comes amidst widespread public skepticism and opposition, particularly from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin.

Supervisor Juan Miguel Martinez, who is leading the effort, emphasized concerns that the technology disproportionately affects communities of color and young women. He also voiced worries about its potential use by immigration enforcement officers, citing instances of protests in his district against such technologies.

Law Enforcement’s Perspective

Chief Deputy Brian Barkow of the MCSO clarified that their intent is not for untargeted surveillance, but rather to use the technology to identify individuals in violent crime incidents. He stated, "Our intent is not to install it on existing cameras where you are walking through the courthouse and it is scanning your face to identify you… it is to obtain an image to make an identification in violent crime incidents."

MPD officials have presented cases where facial recognition technology provided crucial leads, such as in a drive-by shooting and a sexual assault case. In one instance, images from surveillance cameras led to the identification of a suspect within 16 hours. Another case involved identifying suspects in a string of taco truck robberies, even when assailants attempted to conceal their faces.

Civil Liberties and Community Concerns

The ACLU of Wisconsin, represented by advocacy director Amanda Merkwae, argues that "Law enforcement’s use of facial recognition software poses a number of serious threats to civil rights and civil liberties, making it dangerous both when it fails and when it functions." A major point of contention is the proposed agreement with Biometrica, where MPD would reportedly provide 2.5 million images, including jail records, in exchange for free access to the software. This raises concerns about:

Data Privacy: Once data is shared with a third-party company, there are no guarantees on its use or security.
Accuracy Issues: Facial recognition software has documented difficulties in accurately identifying non-white faces, leading to potential wrongful identifications.
Lack of Transparency and Oversight: Critics argue that police departments have used this technology without sufficient public transparency or established standard operating procedures.
Potential for Misuse: Fears exist that the technology could be used to monitor protesters or be accessed by federal agencies like ICE.

Community members, like Krissie Fung of the Milwaukee Turners, expressed concerns about the ethical implications of trading millions of mugshots, many of which may belong to individuals never convicted of a crime. Ron Jansen, another public speaker, highlighted a deep-seated distrust in the police and warned that expanding surveillance capabilities could further harm community relations.

Broader Context: Technology Upgrades in Law Enforcement

While Milwaukee grapples with facial recognition, other departments are investing in broader technology upgrades. For example, the Brooklyn Park Police Department recently approved a $1.3 million agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc., for new body-worn cameras with AI capabilities, improved records management systems, and advanced Tasers. These upgrades aim to enhance officer efficiency through features like audio transcription for reports, language translation, and automated video redaction. However, the debate in Milwaukee underscores the unique and heightened scrutiny surrounding facial recognition due to its profound implications for privacy and civil liberties.