Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball (right) sits beside Chief Deputy Brian Barkow (left) during a meeting of the Milwaukee County Board. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Dozens of people filled a room in Milwaukee’s courthouse complex Tuesday morning, listening as representatives from the sheriff’s office pushed for adopting facial recognition technology and answered questions about the Flock camera system. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office hopes to equip its booking room cameras with facial recognition software from the company Biometrica, a move that was not well received by some county residents.

For over an hour, Chief Deputy Brian Barkow and other sheriff’s office staff attempted to quell residents’ fears. During the Tuesday meeting of the Committee on Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services, board members listened to a lengthy presentation from the sheriff’s office differentiating various camera systems, and highlighting aspects of a proposed policy governing facial recognition technology. 

In June, the county board unanimously voted to call on the sheriff’s office  to work with community members to create such a policy. Residents had increasingly expressed concern after the Milwaukee Police Department signaled that it was exploring an agreement with Biomentrica to provide 2.5 million images, booking records and other information in exchange for access to facial recognition software. As concerns mounted about  the police department contract, the public learned that the county sheriff’s office  was also exploring a similar agreement with Biometrica. 

During the Tuesday committee meeting, Barkow ran through the various camera systems the sheriff’s office uses. From Genetec, a video management platform that can detect motion and loitering, to general purpose security cameras used from the zoo to the courthouse, cameras installed in police vehicles, camera trailers, body cameras, and AI-powered Flock cameras used to identify vehicle license plates. 

A sprawling network of Flock cameras has been erected by over 5,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, including at least 221 in Wisconsin. The cameras perpetually photograph and identify vehicles using license plates, storing that data for a period of time and allowing law enforcement to search Flock’s network for that data. The cameras can be set up to notify officers of when specific vehicles are spotted, sending more notifications as they pass Flock cameras installed in one neighborhood or another.

Barkow and Sheriff Denita Ball said that saying that this practice amounts to “tracking” is a misrepresentation. “When you say ‘tracking’,” Barkow told the Wisconsin Examiner, “most people think of I’m like, live tracking you. And so an alert occurs, right, but it occurs after that vehicle has already been someplace.” Ball underscored the point. “What it says is the car is here at this time,” said Ball. “Now because it has alerted the police officer, the deputy sheriff, what they’re going to do now is follow that car.” Barkow added in such situations a deputy could “respond to that area to attempt to locate the vehicle.” It may then pass in front of another Flock camera at some point, or it may not, Barkow added. 

None of these systems use facial recognition software, Barkow and other sheriff’s office  staff said. Rather, the sheriff’s office sees its booking room cameras — used to photograph people during the intake process at the jail — as good candidates for Biometrica’s software. A PowerPoint presentation produced by the sheriff’s office states that these cameras can capture high-quality images of scars, marks, tattoos, and other distinctive characteristics. 

The presentation states that the sheriff’s office  is evaluating how facial recognition could be used to compare booking images against law enforcement databases. No biometric information or data would be accessed, stored, or transmitted, the PowerPoint stated, and all searches would be both private and logged, nor would the data be sold to third parties. 

Facial recognition software could be used to identify people linked to active investigations, missing persons, witnesses, victims, mitigating “imminent threats” like terrorism and violence, and assisting forensic processes. Sheriff’s office staff would be prohibited from using it for mass surveillance or indiscriminate tracking, automated real-time identification without human oversight, targeting people based on race, gender, religion, or other protected traits, or relying on facial recognition as the sole reason for an arrest or for pursuing a search warrant. 

Committee members peppered Barkow and company with a variety of questions. They raised concerns about the adoption of surveillance technologies in the current political climate, particularly when it comes to actions by the Trump administration. There were questions about whether agencies like immigration enforcement could access the accumulated data of Flock or facial recognition cameras, and who exactly in the sheriff’s  chain of command would be making decisions about how the technology is used and who accesses it. Some expressed concerns that facial recognition has been shown to have higher failure rates for non-white faces. Sheriff’s office staff  and representatives from Biometrica countered that although early models of the technology did have those issues, advancements have all but eliminated those concerns, though no specific improved detection rates were provided. 

Sup. Justin Bielinski, who chairs the committee, set a strict two-minute limit on speaking time because of the large volume of people waiting to comment

Calling Sheriff Ball a “liar” who had failed to respond to community concerns about the jail, Ron Jansen, the first member of the public to speak, said, “this department cannot be given additional power, period.” Jansen said that sheriff’s office  staff could run screenshots through facial recognition software applications, or request other law enforcement agencies to do it for them. Jansen pushed back against the sheriff’s claims that running a photo through facial recognition technology is similar to putting a picture out in the news. “Great!” Said Jansen. “I would encourage them not to waste our money on [facial recognition] technology and instead to continue running photos in the news, and asking for public support. It’s cheaper and probably a lot more effective.” 

One person after another  expressed doubts about the Milwaukee sheriff’s  push to adopt facial recognition technology, and also questioned the use of Flock cameras. Several referred to a recent scandal involving the Greenfield police chief, who is facing felony charges after having a department-owned pole camera installed at his home to monitor his wife during a messy divorce. Others compared the capabilities of Flock and facial recognition technology to World War II-era European countries where secret police photographed and identified targeted individuals. 

Many, including members of the committee, echoed fears about federal agencies accessing the data collected by the Milwaukee sheriff’s tools. “I haven’t heard one community member today say that they support this,” said Angela Lang, executive director of Black Leaders Organizing Communities (BLOC). “All of the folks that we have been talking to in the community say if we actually want to get to the root causes of crime, we invest in things like mental health and health care and affordable housing.”