“Fact: Cities must disclose responsible uses of biometric data” is a parody of the title of my May 2025 guest post for Biometric Update, “Opinion: Vendors must disclose responsible uses of biometric data.”
But I could have chosen another title: “Fact: lack of deadlines sinks behavior.” That’s a mixture of two quotes from Tracy “Trace” Wilkins and Chris Burt, as we will see.
Whether Vanilla Ice and Gordon Lightfoot would agree with the sentiment is not known.
But back to my Biometric Update guest post (expect my next appearance in Biometric Update in 2035).
That guest post touched on Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but had nothing to do with ICE.
One of the “responsible uses” questions was one that Biometric Update had raised in the previous month: whether it was proper for the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) to share information with facial recognition vendor Biometrica.
Milwaukee needed a policy
But the conversation subsequently redirected to another topic, as I noted in August. Before Milwaukee’s “Common Council” could approve any use of facial recognition, with or without Biometrica data sharing, MPD needed to develop a facial recognition policy.
According to a quote from MPD, it agreed.
“Should MPD move forward with acquiring FRT, a policy will be drafted based upon best practices and public input.”
It was clear that the policy would come first, facial recognition use afterward.
Well, until last night, when a fact was revealed that caused Chris Burt to write an article entitled “Milwaukee police sink efforts to contract facial recognition with unsanctioned use.”
Sounds like the biggest wreck since the one Gordon Lightfoot sang about. (A different lake, but bear with me here.)
Milwaukee didn’t get a policy
The details are in an article by WUWM, Milwaukee’s NPR station, which took a break from ICE coverage to report on a Thursday night Fire and Police Commission meeting.
“Commissioner Krissie Fung pressed MPD inspector Paul Lao on the department’s past use of facial recognition.
““Just to clarify,” asked Fung, “Is the practice still continuing?”
““As needed right now, we are still using [FRT],” Lao responded.”
It was after 10:00 pm Central time, but the commissioner pressed the issue.
Fung asked Lao if the department was currently still using FRT without an SOP in place.
“As we said that’s correct and we’re trying to work on getting an SOP,” Lao said.
That brought the wolves out, because SOP or no SOP, there are people who hate facial recognition, especially because of other things going on in the city that have nothing to do with MPD. Add the “facial recognition is racist” claims, and MPD was (in Burt’s words) sunk.
Yes, a follow-up meeting will be held, but Burt notes (via WISN) that MPD has imposed its own moratorium on facial recognition technology use.
“Despite our belief that this is useful technology to assist in generating leads for apprehending violent criminals, we recognize that the public trust is far more valuable.”
Milwaukee should have asked, then acted
From Bredemarket’s self-interested perspective this is a content problem.
- Back in August 2025, Milwaukee knew that it needed a facial recognition policy.
- Several months later, in February 2026, it didn’t have one, and didn’t have a timeframe regarding when a policy would be ready for review.
Now I appreciate that a facial recognition policy is not a short writing job. I’ve worked on policies, and you can’t complete one in a couple of days.
But couldn’t you at least come up with a DRAFT in six months?
To create a policy, you need a process.
Deadlines drive behavior
Coincidentally, I live-blogged a Never Search Alone webinar this morning at which Tracy “Trace” Wilkins made this statement.
“Deadlines drive behavior.”
Frankly, I see this a lot. Companies (or governments) require content, but don’t set a deadline for finalizing that content.
And when you don’t set a deadline, then it never gets done.
And no, “as soon as possible” is not a deadline, because “as soon as possible” REALLY means “within a year, if we feel like it.”
Lack of deadlines sinks behavior.
Bredemarket 