1001 Smart Cities
🇺🇸 San Francisco

Surveillance Technology Ordinance & Facial Recognition Ban

🤖 AI-generated summary · ◆ 13 sourced claims · 🔎 Last verified

This overview was generated with AI from the public sources listed below and checked against them before publication. It has not had a complete human fact-check — treat it as a starting point and follow the sources.

13 sourced claims on this page, none individually verified yet — turn on “Sources in the text” to see each one.

How this atlas is made · What “last verified” means · What “source-checked” means · The full record behind this page

✎ Updated 22 Aug 2026 Publication date recorded for 15 sources. What changed →

The public register works: 93 surveillance technologies listed, 66% of them with a Board-approved policy. In the same years the police department admitted six breaches of the facial recognition ban.

Outcome📉 Scaled back
Evidence🏛️ Official
what does this mean?The strongest source is the operator's or the city's own reporting — an official report, dataset or press release. It grades who did the looking — not how well the project went. All four grades →
Run byCity and County of San Francisco — Board of Supervisors, with the Committee on Information Technology (COIT) and its Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board
Scale🏙️ City-wide

Part of 1001 Smart Cities — 1,167 documented projects · 🏙️ 9 more in San Francisco · 🛡️ Safety & security guide · 🏛️ Governance projects

San Francisco's 2019 ordinance did two separate things: it barred city departments from using facial recognition — the first US city to do so — and it required Board of Supervisors approval, with a published impact report and use policy, before any department acquires surveillance technology. Proposition E loosened the approval step for police in 2024; the ban itself stands.

Live 📅 since 2019 🤖 Uses AI

📊 Impact

The register the law created is real and maintained: the city's own inventory listed 93 surveillance technologies on 1 March 2026, and the same report states that 66% of technologies in use or being procured have a Board-approved policy and 7% a draft reviewed by COIT's Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board. A 2024 lawsuit by the non-profit Secure Justice counted 42 technologies then in use without one.

🎓 Lesson

A transparency law is worth what its enforcement is worth. San Francisco built a working public register — and in the same years its police department admitted six breaches of the facial-recognition ban, won a court case because the ordinance grandfathered technology it already had, and persuaded voters to grant a year's grace before policies are due.

🏛️ GovernanceSafety & securityDigital governmentArtificial intelligenceCitizen participationOpen dataPrivacy & personal data

Sources

↗ San Francisco Board of Supervisors — File 190110, Ordinance No. 103-19 (legislative record)The authoritative record of passage: 'Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require that City departments acquiring surveillance technology... submit a Board of Supervisors approved Surveillance Technology Policy'. Sponsors Aaron Peskin, Norman Yee, Shamann Walton, Hillary Ronen, Matt Haney, Ahsha Safai; introduced 29 January 2019; final passage 21 May 2019; the Mayor returned it unsigned on 31 May 2019, which is the enactment date the city records.
↗ San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 19B — Acquisition of Surveillance Technology (codified text)The two mechanisms, in the law's own words. The ban, 19B.2(d): 'it shall be unlawful for any Department to obtain, retain, access, or use: 1) any Face Recognition Technology on City-issued software or a City-issued product or device; or 2) any information obtained from Face Recognition Technology...'. The carve-out, which applies to the ban only: 'For purposes of subsection 19B.2(d) only, City Department and Department shall not include federally-regulated facilities at the Airport or Port.' The rest of 19B.2 carries the separate approval requirement. Caution for a future check: this publisher returned 403 to our fetch, so the provisions are quoted through the search index of the same page rather than read on it.
↗ TechCrunch — San Francisco passes city government ban on facial recognition tech (14 May 2019)The first-reading vote: 8-1, with District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani dissenting, and the point that the ban reaches city departments only — not personal, business or federal use. Note the limit of the 'first' claim: San Francisco was first to ban government facial recognition, but the acquisition-approval half follows the CCOPS model that Santa Clara County adopted in 2016, so no first is claimed for that mechanism.
↗ SF.gov — Surveillance Technology Inventory (city, operator)The public artefact the ordinance was supposed to produce, and the reason this entry is publishable: a live, department-by-department register of surveillance technologies with their impact reports and approved policies.
↗ COIT — Biannual Surveillance Technology Inventory Report, 1 March 2026 (city, operator)Carries the entry's figures: 'As of March 1, 2026, 66% of surveillance technologies in use or in the process of being procured have a surveillance technology policy approved by the Board of Supervisors, 7% have a draft policy that has been reviewed by the COIT Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board.' The same report lists 93 technologies and 58 surveillance technology policies. Two cautions: the 93/58 counts and the 66% share use different denominators and should not be arithmetically reconciled; and the PDF did not yield machine-readable text to this desk, so both figures are cited through the search index of the document. Chapter 19B was amended on 19 January 2025 to require this report twice a year, replacing annual reporting.
Show 10 more sourcesShow fewer
↗ San Francisco Public Press — Proposition E: Police Department Policies and Procedures (2024 voter explainer)The one-year mechanism in plain terms: Prop E lets police 'acquire and use new surveillance technology on the public without approval from the Board of Supervisors as long as the department submitted a set of policies governing its use within one year'. Also the money: Chris Larsen $250,000; Daniel Lurie $635,000 including $250,000 from his brother; the police union $50,000; the ACLU $200,000 opposed.
↗ Electronic Frontier Foundation — What is Proposition E and why should San Francisco voters oppose it? (Feb 2024, advocacy, labelled)Published 2 February 2024 · updated 4 March 2024Advocacy, cited for two things it states precisely. The grace period: 'the SFPD can use any technology they want for a full year without publishing an official policy about how they'd use the technology or allowing community members to voice their concerns.' And the disputed facial-recognition reading: EFF reports the City Attorney determined Prop E 'would even enable the SFPD to outfit surveillance tools such as drones and surveillance cameras with face recognition technology', while EFF's own position is that the 2019 ban is clear and survives. The entry states only what is checkable in 2026: 19B.2(d) is still in the code and still being litigated as live law.
↗ Mission Local — Here's how Prop. E could change police surveillance in San Francisco (Feb 2024)Published 20 February 2024The second, stronger mechanism, distinct from the one-year grace: Prop E would 'exempt new police drones and surveillance cameras from the city's technology ordinance altogether, meaning those technologies would not require a policy approved by the Board of Supervisors'. Also the campaign total, 'more than $1.4 million', and Chris Larsen as 'one of the measure's chief financiers'.
↗ The San Francisco Standard — San Francisco voters OK Prop. E, giving more police powers (5 Mar 2024)The result: 'Proposition E was winning with 54.6% of the vote with roughly 37,500 votes still left to count.' The entry says 'more than 54%' rather than a precise certified share, which we did not obtain from the Department of Elections.
↗ Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse — Williams v. San Francisco, CGC-20-587008The correction that keeps this entry honest. Three activists sued in October 2020 over SFPD's live access to the Union Square Business Improvement District camera network during the George Floyd protests. On 9 February 2022 Judge Richard Ulmer granted the city summary judgment: the ordinance let departments keep using surveillance technology they had used before it passed, and the same cameras had been used at 2019 Pride. Notice of appeal filed 25 March 2022; no final appellate decision was found in this review. So the camera episode is documented, but it did not produce a judicial finding that the ordinance was breached.
↗ Electronic Frontier Foundation — San Francisco Police Accessed Business District Camera Network to Spy on Protestors (Jul 2020)Published 27 July 2020The public-records work that surfaced the episode: SFPD 'received a real-time remote link to more than 400 surveillance cameras' operated by the Union Square Business Improvement District, a non-city entity, between 31 May and 7 June 2020.
↗ The San Francisco Standard — SFPD skirted facial-recognition ban, lawsuit says (18 Jul 2024)The admitted breaches and the suit. Police 'copped to circumventing the ban six times, blaming two officers for most of the violations'; the non-profit Secure Justice alleges at least six more officers did so 'at least seven other times by asking neighboring agencies to use the technology for them'. The breaches were left out of SFPD's 2023 annual surveillance report, itself a breach of the 2019 ordinance. The suit also identifies 42 technologies deployed without the required disclosures and seven with no annual report. No final judgment was found as of July 2026.
↗ 48 Hills — A move to undermine SF's law that controls police surveillance (Oct 2025)Published 5 October 2025The live threat to the ordinance as of this review: Supervisor Matt Dorsey introduced legislation to strip the private right of action that lets residents and organisations sue over violations, calling the law 'an onerous mess' that invites 'baseless but costly lawsuits'. The proposal does not touch the facial-recognition ban. Introduced only, not voted, at publication.
↗ The San Francisco Standard — SF once led the fight against police surveillance (25 Mar 2026)Currency. What the city is running two years after Prop E: 'Last month, the SFPD recorded a record 700 drone flights — an average of 25 per day', across 98 devices, and 400 privately funded Flock automated plate readers, with Chris Larsen again the main funder.
↗ KQED — San Francisco police audit shows feds improperly accessed licence plate data hundreds of times (18 Jun 2026)Included as context and as a boundary marker, not as an ordinance outcome. SFPD's own audit found the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center and the West States Information Network searched the city's plate-reader data hundreds of times since May 2025, and access was disabled. The rule broken is California's 2015 state law on sharing plate data with federal and out-of-state agencies — not Chapter 19B — so it is deliberately kept out of the entry's impact.

📅 How old is the evidence?

Two clocks, kept apart: when this entry’s sources were published, and what has happened to its record in the atlas. Documented span: since 2019. 7 of 15 sources carry a publication date, from 27 July 2020 to 25 March 2026.

When the sources were published

  1. Electronic Frontier Foundation · ngoElectronic Frontier Foundation — San Francisco Police Accessed Business District Camera Network to Spy on Protestors (Jul 2020)
  2. Electronic Frontier Foundation · ngoElectronic Frontier Foundation — What is Proposition E and why should San Francisco voters oppose it? (Feb 2024, advocacy, labelled) · updated 4 March 2024
  3. Mission Local · pressMission Local — Here's how Prop. E could change police surveillance in San Francisco (Feb 2024)
  4. The San Francisco Standard · pressThe San Francisco Standard — San Francisco voters OK Prop. E, giving more police powers (5 Mar 2024)
  5. The San Francisco Standard · pressThe San Francisco Standard — SFPD skirted facial-recognition ban, lawsuit says (18 Jul 2024)
  6. 48 Hills · press48 Hills — A move to undermine SF's law that controls police surveillance (Oct 2025)
  7. The San Francisco Standard · pressThe San Francisco Standard — SF once led the fight against police surveillance (25 Mar 2026)

Every source, with links ↑

What happened to this record

  1. Sources last read
  2. Entered the record
  3. Publication date recorded for 15 sources

Every revision, permanent →

Show your work What this page rests on and what it can’t tell you · all 13 claims with their sources · the forensic record

Evidence Passport · public beta 13 addressable claims, 15 source dossiers, one permanent baseline. The passport is unreviewed — an AI-assisted structural migration, not a human or expert endorsement. Every revision keeps a permanent copy under revision history.

Inspect the claims, one by one — verbatim text, sources and caveats for all 13

The text below is copied verbatim from the published record. Each claim names the source dossiers that carry it; caveats stay attached to the claim they qualify.

Claim 1 clm-94cc76fe19438872 quantitative
San Francisco's 2019 ordinance did two separate things
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The legislative record dates the measure: introduced 29 January 2019, final passage 21 May 2019, returned unsigned by the Mayor on 31 May 2019, which is the enactment date the city records.
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. San Francisco Board of Supervisors — File 190110, Ordinance No. 103-19 (legislative record)
Claim 2 clm-a42ca98b7a256bed descriptive
it barred city departments from using facial recognition
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
Section 19B.2(d) of the codified text reads: 'it shall be unlawful for any Department to obtain, retain, access, or use: 1) any Face Recognition Technology on City-issued software or a City-issued product or device; or 2) any information obtained from Face Recognition Technology'. The prohibition binds city departments, not private or federal use.
Caveat
The code publisher returned an error to this desk's fetch, so the provision is quoted through the search index of the same page rather than read on it. Federally regulated facilities at the Airport and Port are carved out of the ban.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 19B — Acquisition of Surveillance Technology (codified text)
Claim 3 clm-bc3d5da2632f60d6 descriptive
the first US city to do so
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
TechCrunch reports the first-reading vote as 8-1, with District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani dissenting, and records San Francisco as the first US city to ban government use of facial recognition.
Caveat
The 'first' applies to the facial-recognition ban only. The acquisition-approval half follows the CCOPS model that Santa Clara County adopted in 2016, and the entry claims no first for that mechanism.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. TechCrunch — San Francisco passes city government ban on facial recognition tech (14 May 2019)
Claim 4 clm-dc663d3f6d842a54 descriptive
it required Board of Supervisors approval, with a published impact report and use policy, before any department acquires surveillance technology
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The ordinance's own title states it requires 'that City departments acquiring surveillance technology... submit a Board of Supervisors approved Surveillance Technology Policy'. This is the half of the law that applies to every department and every technology, distinct from the facial-recognition prohibition.
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. San Francisco Board of Supervisors — File 190110, Ordinance No. 103-19 (legislative record)
Claim 5 clm-18eff2e00ccbc759 quantitative
Proposition E loosened the approval step for police in 2024
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The voter explainer states Prop E lets police 'acquire and use new surveillance technology on the public without approval from the Board of Supervisors as long as the department submitted a set of policies governing its use within one year'. Mission Local documents a second, stronger mechanism: Prop E would 'exempt new police drones and surveillance cameras from the city's technology ordinance altogether'. The Standard reports it passing with 54.6 per cent counted at the time of writing.
Caveat
The entry says 'more than 54%' rather than a certified share; a Department of Elections certification was not obtained in this review.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. San Francisco Public Press — Proposition E: Police Department Policies and Procedures (2024 voter explainer)
  2. Mission Local — Here's how Prop. E could change police surveillance in San Francisco (Feb 2024)
  3. The San Francisco Standard — San Francisco voters OK Prop. E, giving more police powers (5 Mar 2024)
Claim 6 clm-0354ba2435c955e6 descriptive
the ban itself stands
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
Section 19B.2(d) is still in the codified text. The EFF piece records the dispute rather than settling it: the City Attorney determined Prop E 'would even enable the SFPD to outfit surveillance tools such as drones and surveillance cameras with face recognition technology', while EFF's own position is that the 2019 ban is clear and survives.
Caveat
Advocacy source, labelled as such. The entry states only what is checkable: the provision is still in the code and still being litigated as live law.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 19B — Acquisition of Surveillance Technology (codified text)
  2. Electronic Frontier Foundation — What is Proposition E and why should San Francisco voters oppose it? (Feb 2024, advocacy, labelled)
Claim 7 clm-6524e69bedc3b0fa descriptive
The register the law created is real and maintained
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The city publishes a live, department-by-department register of surveillance technologies with their impact reports and approved policies — the public artefact the ordinance was written to produce.
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. SF.gov — Surveillance Technology Inventory (city, operator)
Claim 8 clm-e553797fb408c13c quantitative
the city's own inventory listed 93 surveillance technologies on 1 March 2026
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The 1 March 2026 biannual report lists 93 technologies and 58 surveillance technology policies.
Caveat
The 93/58 counts and the 66% share in the same report use different denominators and should not be arithmetically reconciled. The PDF did not yield machine-readable text to this desk, so the figure is cited through the search index of the document.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. COIT — Biannual Surveillance Technology Inventory Report, 1 March 2026 (city, operator)
Claim 9 clm-2c5ea063b9293614 quantitative
66% of technologies in use or being procured have a Board-approved policy and 7% a draft reviewed by COIT's Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The report states: 'As of March 1, 2026, 66% of surveillance technologies in use or in the process of being procured have a surveillance technology policy approved by the Board of Supervisors, 7% have a draft policy that has been reviewed by the COIT Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board.'
Caveat
Operator self-report. The PDF did not yield machine-readable text to this desk, so the sentence is cited through the search index of the document rather than read in it. Chapter 19B was amended on 19 January 2025 to require this report twice a year, replacing annual reporting.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. COIT — Biannual Surveillance Technology Inventory Report, 1 March 2026 (city, operator)
Claim 10 clm-8f64fc52eed375b1 quantitative
A 2024 lawsuit by the non-profit Secure Justice counted 42 technologies then in use without one
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The Standard reports the Secure Justice suit identifying 42 technologies deployed without the disclosures the ordinance requires, and seven with no annual report.
Caveat
An allegation in a pleading, not a finding. No final judgment was found as of July 2026.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. The San Francisco Standard — SFPD skirted facial-recognition ban, lawsuit says (18 Jul 2024)
Claim 11 clm-d465f3d7abf3fcfa descriptive
its police department admitted six breaches of the facial-recognition ban
Published field
lesson · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The Standard reports that police 'copped to circumventing the ban six times, blaming two officers for most of the violations', and that Secure Justice alleges at least six more officers did so 'at least seven other times by asking neighboring agencies to use the technology for them'. The admitted breaches were left out of the department's 2023 annual surveillance report, itself a breach of the ordinance.
Caveat
The six admitted breaches are the department's own account; the further seven are an allegation in the suit and are not stated in the entry.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. The San Francisco Standard — SFPD skirted facial-recognition ban, lawsuit says (18 Jul 2024)
Claim 12 clm-85e874b2d076708d descriptive
won a court case because the ordinance grandfathered technology it already had
Published field
lesson · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
Three activists sued in October 2020 over police live access to the Union Square Business Improvement District camera network during the George Floyd protests — the EFF's public-records work established that police 'received a real-time remote link to more than 400 surveillance cameras' between 31 May and 7 June 2020. On 9 February 2022 Judge Richard Ulmer granted the city summary judgment: the ordinance let departments keep using surveillance technology they had used before it passed, and the same cameras had been used at 2019 Pride.
Caveat
Notice of appeal was filed on 25 March 2022 and no final appellate decision was found in this review. The episode is documented, but it produced no judicial finding that the ordinance was breached.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse — Williams v. San Francisco, CGC-20-587008
  2. Electronic Frontier Foundation — San Francisco Police Accessed Business District Camera Network to Spy on Protestors (Jul 2020)
Claim 13 clm-ef96c3000881e960 descriptive
persuaded voters to grant a year's grace before policies are due
Published field
lesson · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The EFF states the mechanism precisely: 'the SFPD can use any technology they want for a full year without publishing an official policy about how they'd use the technology or allowing community members to voice their concerns.'
Caveat
Advocacy source, labelled. The same grace period is described in the voter explainer cited elsewhere in this entry.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Electronic Frontier Foundation — What is Proposition E and why should San Francisco voters oppose it? (Feb 2024, advocacy, labelled)
Forensic record — source dossiers, gaps, hashes and the exact revision this page renders

This layer records what is known about each source, what is still missing, and the exact snapshot this page is rendering. A missing date, archive or hash stays visible as missing.

unreviewed Revision 2026-08-21-source-dates effective 2026-07-26 · created 2026-08-22

Awaiting operator and domain-expert review; publication of this revision implies neither.

sha256:501e619ef9ec16e7efdfb71ff817328f30b8237270398cce672ae1223cc484e8
Revision history → Permanent version link → Machine-readable record → Evidence Constitution →
13
of 13 claims mapped
15
source dossiers
10
publication dates recorded
0
archives linked
0
exact locators
0
content captures hashed

Governance facts carried by the record

Operator
City and County of San Francisco — Board of Supervisors, with the Committee on Information Technology (COIT) and its Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board
Actor types
city-government
Funding model
public
Funding description
Not recorded
Cost
Not recorded
Ownership
Not recorded
Decision rights
Not recorded
Exit conditions
Not recorded

15 source dossiers

San Francisco Board of Supervisors — File 190110, Ordinance No. 103-19 (legislative record) sfgov.legistar.com · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-ed1c80ba1ea895ff
Publisher
Name not classified · sfgov.legistar.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The authoritative record of passage: 'Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require that City departments acquiring surveillance technology... submit a Board of Supervisors approved Surveillance Technology Policy'. Sponsors Aaron Peskin, Norman Yee, Shamann Walton, Hillary Ronen, Matt Haney, Ahsha Safai; introduced 29 January 2019; final passage 21 May 2019; the Mayor returned it unsigned on 31 May 2019, which is the enactment date the city records.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 19B — Acquisition of Surveillance Technology (codified text) codelibrary.amlegal.com · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-26841c3bc1a13f76
Publisher
Name not classified · codelibrary.amlegal.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The two mechanisms, in the law's own words. The ban, 19B.2(d): 'it shall be unlawful for any Department to obtain, retain, access, or use: 1) any Face Recognition Technology on City-issued software or a City-issued product or device; or 2) any information obtained from Face Recognition Technology...'. The carve-out, which applies to the ban only: 'For purposes of subsection 19B.2(d) only, City Department and Department shall not include federally-regulated facilities at the Airport or Port.' The rest of 19B.2 carries the separate approval requirement. Caution for a future check: this publisher returned 403 to our fetch, so the provisions are quoted through the search index of the same page rather than read on it.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
TechCrunch — San Francisco passes city government ban on facial recognition tech (14 May 2019) techcrunch.com · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-0bf632fc485987d9
Publisher
Name not classified · techcrunch.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2019-05-14
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The first-reading vote: 8-1, with District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani dissenting, and the point that the ban reaches city departments only — not personal, business or federal use. Note the limit of the 'first' claim: San Francisco was first to ban government facial recognition, but the acquisition-approval half follows the CCOPS model that Santa Clara County adopted in 2016, so no first is claimed for that mechanism.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
SF.gov — Surveillance Technology Inventory (city, operator) sf.gov · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-87955f70d67fad4e
Publisher
Name not classified · sf.gov
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The public artefact the ordinance was supposed to produce, and the reason this entry is publishable: a live, department-by-department register of surveillance technologies with their impact reports and approved policies.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
COIT — Biannual Surveillance Technology Inventory Report, 1 March 2026 (city, operator) media.api.sf.gov · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-f7abebbabd21d41c
Publisher
Name not classified · media.api.sf.gov
Type / language
pdf · language not classified
Published
2026-03-01
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Carries the entry's figures: 'As of March 1, 2026, 66% of surveillance technologies in use or in the process of being procured have a surveillance technology policy approved by the Board of Supervisors, 7% have a draft policy that has been reviewed by the COIT Privacy and Surveillance Advisory Board.' The same report lists 93 technologies and 58 surveillance technology policies. Two cautions: the 93/58 counts and the 66% share use different denominators and should not be arithmetically reconciled; and the PDF did not yield machine-readable text to this desk, so both figures are cited through the search index of the document. Chapter 19B was amended on 19 January 2025 to require this report twice a year, replacing annual reporting.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
San Francisco Public Press — Proposition E: Police Department Policies and Procedures (2024 voter explainer) sfpublicpress.org · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-07caacc4f9685b0c
Publisher
Name not classified · sfpublicpress.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The one-year mechanism in plain terms: Prop E lets police 'acquire and use new surveillance technology on the public without approval from the Board of Supervisors as long as the department submitted a set of policies governing its use within one year'. Also the money: Chris Larsen $250,000; Daniel Lurie $635,000 including $250,000 from his brother; the police union $50,000; the ACLU $200,000 opposed.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Electronic Frontier Foundation — What is Proposition E and why should San Francisco voters oppose it? (Feb 2024, advocacy, labelled) eff.org · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-d8a7a2184b8196a5
Publisher
Name not classified · eff.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2024-02-02
Updated
2024-03-04
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Advocacy, cited for two things it states precisely. The grace period: 'the SFPD can use any technology they want for a full year without publishing an official policy about how they'd use the technology or allowing community members to voice their concerns.' And the disputed facial-recognition reading: EFF reports the City Attorney determined Prop E 'would even enable the SFPD to outfit surveillance tools such as drones and surveillance cameras with face recognition technology', while EFF's own position is that the 2019 ban is clear and survives. The entry states only what is checkable in 2026: 19B.2(d) is still in the code and still being litigated as live law.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Mission Local — Here's how Prop. E could change police surveillance in San Francisco (Feb 2024) missionlocal.org · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-6a2e32bffedf1aeb
Publisher
Name not classified · missionlocal.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2024-02-20
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The second, stronger mechanism, distinct from the one-year grace: Prop E would 'exempt new police drones and surveillance cameras from the city's technology ordinance altogether, meaning those technologies would not require a policy approved by the Board of Supervisors'. Also the campaign total, 'more than $1.4 million', and Chris Larsen as 'one of the measure's chief financiers'.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
The San Francisco Standard — San Francisco voters OK Prop. E, giving more police powers (5 Mar 2024) sfstandard.com · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-c9a9bf5154912d3b
Publisher
Name not classified · sfstandard.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2024-03-05
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The result: 'Proposition E was winning with 54.6% of the vote with roughly 37,500 votes still left to count.' The entry says 'more than 54%' rather than a precise certified share, which we did not obtain from the Department of Elections.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse — Williams v. San Francisco, CGC-20-587008 clearinghouse.net · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-94bf21a34a0e75ce
Publisher
Name not classified · clearinghouse.net
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The correction that keeps this entry honest. Three activists sued in October 2020 over SFPD's live access to the Union Square Business Improvement District camera network during the George Floyd protests. On 9 February 2022 Judge Richard Ulmer granted the city summary judgment: the ordinance let departments keep using surveillance technology they had used before it passed, and the same cameras had been used at 2019 Pride. Notice of appeal filed 25 March 2022; no final appellate decision was found in this review. So the camera episode is documented, but it did not produce a judicial finding that the ordinance was breached.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Electronic Frontier Foundation — San Francisco Police Accessed Business District Camera Network to Spy on Protestors (Jul 2020) eff.org · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-dcf89f165d829c21
Publisher
Name not classified · eff.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2020-07-27
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The public-records work that surfaced the episode: SFPD 'received a real-time remote link to more than 400 surveillance cameras' operated by the Union Square Business Improvement District, a non-city entity, between 31 May and 7 June 2020.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
The San Francisco Standard — SFPD skirted facial-recognition ban, lawsuit says (18 Jul 2024) sfstandard.com · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-e37b0b3ee391682f
Publisher
Name not classified · sfstandard.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2024-07-18
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The admitted breaches and the suit. Police 'copped to circumventing the ban six times, blaming two officers for most of the violations'; the non-profit Secure Justice alleges at least six more officers did so 'at least seven other times by asking neighboring agencies to use the technology for them'. The breaches were left out of SFPD's 2023 annual surveillance report, itself a breach of the 2019 ordinance. The suit also identifies 42 technologies deployed without the required disclosures and seven with no annual report. No final judgment was found as of July 2026.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
48 Hills — A move to undermine SF's law that controls police surveillance (Oct 2025) 48hills.org · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-725c98dc14f8eb96
Publisher
Name not classified · 48hills.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2025-10-05
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The live threat to the ordinance as of this review: Supervisor Matt Dorsey introduced legislation to strip the private right of action that lets residents and organisations sue over violations, calling the law 'an onerous mess' that invites 'baseless but costly lawsuits'. The proposal does not touch the facial-recognition ban. Introduced only, not voted, at publication.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
The San Francisco Standard — SF once led the fight against police surveillance (25 Mar 2026) sfstandard.com · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-3ffffa5cfd36a241
Publisher
Name not classified · sfstandard.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2026-03-25
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Currency. What the city is running two years after Prop E: 'Last month, the SFPD recorded a record 700 drone flights — an average of 25 per day', across 98 devices, and 400 privately funded Flock automated plate readers, with Chris Larsen again the main funder.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
KQED — San Francisco police audit shows feds improperly accessed licence plate data hundreds of times (18 Jun 2026) kqed.org · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-ad4b458fcd853f9e
Publisher
Name not classified · kqed.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2026-06-18
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-22
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Included as context and as a boundary marker, not as an ordinance outcome. SFPD's own audit found the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center and the West States Information Network searched the city's plate-reader data hundreds of times since May 2025, and access was disabled. The rule broken is California's 2015 state law on sharing plate data with federal and out-of-state agencies — not Chapter 19B — so it is deliberately kept out of the entry's impact.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
Known limits of this passport
  • Publisher names and source languages have not yet been classified; domains are recorded without guessing.
  • Existing source notes are descriptive locators, not page- or paragraph-exact citations.
  • A missing archive, publication date or content hash is shown as null rather than inferred.
  • The project-level evidence grade ranks the strongest source in the entry; it is not a truth score for every claim.

Continue exploring

Compare this project

🇺🇸 ShotSpotter Acoustic Gunshot Detection · Chicago Chicago ended its gunshot sensors only after years of audits; San Francisco requires a Board vote and an impact report before buying. 🇳🇱 Amsterdam Public-Space Sensor Register · Amsterdam Both list what watches public space: Amsterdam by policy, San Francisco under a 2019 ordinance — 93 technologies in March 2026. 🇺🇸 Operation LASER & PredPol — Predictive Policing · Los Angeles LAPD's watchdog could not measure any effect and the tool was dropped; San Francisco's police admitted six breaches and kept going.

Facial recognition on public cameras: what stopped it?

In four cities the cameras were already there and the face-matching layer was the question. Each was halted — by a different institution, on different grounds, and one of them was never switched on at all.

ProjectSinceStatusOutcomeEvidenceRun byCostWhat stopped it
Surveillance Technology Ordinance & Facial Recognition BanSan Francisco, 🇺🇸 2019 Live Scaled back Official City government not public The city stopped itself: an ordinance barred its own departments from face recognition and made every other surveillance tool pass a council vote.
Buenos Aires's Fugitive Facial Recognition System, stopped by the courtsBuenos Aires, 🇦🇷 2019 Suspended Failed Independent City government not public A court stopped it — on the city's own security law and the oversight bodies it never convened, rather than primarily on data protection.
Algorithms on Nice's cameras: the carnival face test and the school-gate system the courts stoppedNice, 🇫🇷 2019 Suspended Failed Independent City government not public The regulator asked the city to measure its own error rates, the city could not, and the highest administrative court then ended the practice for every French municipality.
112 Downtown Cameras, and the Ten Face-Matching Ones That Never Switched OnCampo Grande, 🇧🇷 2024 Live Scaled back Media City government not public Nothing stopped it, because it never started: the municipal guard holds no image database, and the data-sharing agreement was never signed.

Explore the wider context

🗺️ Your City's Problem Map Is Really a Map of Who Complains👁️ Who is allowed to watch?📖 Civic participation platform📖 Digital identity📖 Government super-app
📎 Cite this project

1001 Smart Cities (2026). “Surveillance Technology Ordinance & Facial Recognition Ban” — San Francisco, United States. The Smart City Atlas. https://1001smartcities.org/projects/sf-surveillance-ordinance/ (last verified 2026-07-26). Data: CC BY 4.0.

The underlying data is free to reuse with attribution — see the open data page.

🚩 Report an error · 🔔 Follow changes to this entry (RSS)

✉️ Get the next source-checked smart-city project in your inbox

One short email a week: the Landmark, one Insight, the new cities. No spam, one-click unsubscribe. About the newsletter · RSS