DETROIT (WXYZ) — Today, the Detroit Health Department invited 7 News Detroit along for an up-close look at food safety inspections and discussed the Dining with Confidence ordinance.
RELATED STORY: Dining with Confidence ordinance passed by Detroit City Council
Dining with Confidence ordinance passed by Detroit City Council
Advertisement
Andre Miller, a customer at The Burger Truck said, “Anywhere you dine out. You always want it to be a nice, clean, and safe environment.”
He was pleased to learn The Burger Truck on Cass Avenue was deemed all those things after it passed its food safety inspection just minutes before his visit.
Environmental health specialist Sebrina Johnson performed the inspection.
She said inspectors must wash their hands when entering the food prep area, and “it also gives you the opportunity to make sure they have hot and cold running water.” That’s a problem Johnson said some food trucks run into.
Advertisement
Passing an inspection falls in line with the city’s recently passed ordinance Dining with Confidence. Businesses will be required to display a placard showing their food is safe to eat.
The Burger Truck owner Kamal Alashkar said he’s all for the ordinance.
“I’m thrilled about it because I feel like there’s… an ideology that people think food trucks are dirty just because it’s not like a restaurant that you can’t see inside of it, when it’s honestly the completely opposite. I know a lot of food truck owners that have cleaner food trucks than most restaurants,” Alashkar explained.
Detroit city councilman Scott Benson, who introduced the Dining with Confidence explained, “What sparked this for me was Popeyes Chicken on 7 Mile and Gratiot. It was Church’s Chicken on 7 Mile and Conant where you had the owners of those locations purposely selling tainted rotten food.”
He said the ordinance officially takes effect in October. Establishments like Jolly Pumpkin and Avalon on Canfield are a part of the voluntary pilot program.
Advertisement
RELATED STORY: Popeyes shuts down Detroit location after viral video reports roaches, unsanitary conditions
Popeyes shuts down Detroit location after viral video reports roaches, unsanitary conditions
Jolly Pumpkin and Avalon also passed their inspection.
Advertisement
General manager Jason Vandereyk said, “I tell my staff us managers, we implement it but they’re the ones that execute it, and I’m very proud of every one of my staff that are here.”
So what exactly are inspectors looking for?
VIDEO: Here’s the ‘Dining with Confidence’ inspector checklist
VIDEO: Here’s the ‘Dining with Confidence’ inspector checklist
Advertisement
Environmental health specialist Paul Barry explained, “We have all of our inspectors focus on the risk factors that might lead to a foodborne illness. So, that is proper holding of hot and cold food, proper cooking temperatures, good hygienic practices, sanitizing all their contact surfaces and food from food sources.”
If a restaurant fails to pass inspection, the city says it will get a red placard. However, as Detroit’s chief public health officer Denise Fair Razo explains, that’s not what anyone wants.
“We’re not in the business of shutting down restaurants. That’s not what we enjoy doing. What we do like to do is sit down with the restaurant and foodstuff owner, let them know that they do have violations and we’ll do whatever we can to make sure that they correct those violations, and they’re up to code again,” she said.
The community came together today for the third annual “Peacenic.”
More than 70 organizations gathered to promote peace at O’Hair Park.
The event was led by United States Attorney Dawn Ison as part of a violence reduction partnership.
It featured music, food, a bounce house, petting zoo and face painting.
Advertisement
It was also an opportunity to engage with law enforcement for a positive experience including recruiting initiatives, literacy programs, mental health, along with tutoring and expungement programs.
This event takes place each summer in the 8th and 9th precinct
The NFL is in some hot water legally over its handling of its popular Sunday subscription service, “Sunday Ticket.”
Specifically, a jury of eight recently found that the league broke antitrust laws by selling Sunday Ticket only on DirecTV, plus at an unnecessarily high price.
The jury came to this conclusion by surmising that offering the service on only one provider and with an inflated price limited the number of subscribers and appealed to CBS’s and Fox’s concerns regarding preserving local ratings. Plus, the jury concluded this subscription model enabled the NFL – a multi-billion dollar industry – to get richer.
Subsequently, the NFL is currently on the hook for a staggering $4.8 billion in damages, with $4.696 billion set to go to the residential class and another approximate $97 million headed to the commercial class (i.e. bars, hotels and restaurants). Additionally, under antitrust law, that $4.696 billion figure gets tripled, equating to $14.088 billion in damages.
Advertisement
So, what does all this mean for the Lions and the rest of the NFL’s 32 franchises? Per ProFootballTalk, it means that each team will have to pay $440.25 million in damages – nearly $200M more than this year’s salary cap ($255.4M per team).
“We are disappointed with the jury’s verdict today in the NFL Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit. We continue to believe that our media distribution strategy, which features all NFL games broadcast on free over-the-air television in the markets of the participating teams and national distribution of our most popular games, supplemented by many additional choices including RedZone, Sunday Ticket and NFL+, is by far the most fan friendly distribution model in all of sports and entertainment,” the league said of the ruling.
“We will certainly contest this decision as we believe that the class action claims in this case are baseless and without merit. We thank the jury for their time and service and for the guidance and oversight from Judge [Philip] Gutierrez throughout the trial.”
Many individuals arrested and charged based on facial recognition scan results often feel compelled to plead guilty, especially if they have a criminal record. This situation can lead to longer sentences and increased scrutiny from law enforcement and prosecutors, contrasting with the case of Robert Williams in Detroit City.
Detroit’s recent $300,000 settlement with Williams raises broader concerns about how facial technology is used to solve crimes. It underscores increasing worries about privacy rights and the importance of establishing protections as technology advances.
TOPSHOT – A live demonstration uses artificial intelligence and facial recognition in dense crowd spatial-temporal technology at the Horizon Robotics exhibit at the Las Vegas Convention Center during CES 2019 in Las Vegas on January 10, 2019. (Photo : DAVID MCNEW/AFP via Getty Images)
Robert Williams Sued the Detroit Police Department After being Mistakenly Identified as Theft Suspect
Detroit has agreed to pay $300,000 to Robert Williams, who was wrongly accused of theft due to flawed facial recognition technology. Williams sued the Detroit Police Department after he was wrongfully arrested in front of his family and jailed for 30 hours in 2020,
The case was dismissed on Friday when the settlement between Williams and the city was filed in federal court. As part of the lawsuit settlement, the Detroit Police Department will also have to change its policies on how police will utilize this technology to prevent future misidentifications.
Advertisement
The Associated Press reported that Williams, whose driver’s license photo was wrongly flagged as a match to a suspect in a 2018 shoplifting case at a Shinola store, expressed relief at the settlement.
In a press briefing on Friday, Williams expressed optimism that the new safeguards would improve the facial recognition technology and photo lineup policies. However, he preferred that the police would not use the technology.
The settlement, announced by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Civil Rights Litigation Initiative at the University of Michigan Law School, highlighted persistent concerns regarding the technology’s imperfections and its disproportionate impact on Black individuals, such as Williams.
According to the ACLU, Detroit police have agreed to new restrictions barring arrests solely based on facial recognition outcomes. The policy also prohibits arrests based on photo lineups derived from facial recognition searches.
ACLU attorney Phil Mayor said police could use facial technology to generate leads and then conduct traditional investigative procedures to determine whether the identified person committed a crime before making an arrest.
Advertisement
Read Also: China Proposes Measures for Facial Recognition Use, Demands ‘Individual Consent’
Policy Reforms of the Detroit Police Department
In August, Chief of the Detroit Police Department James White introduced new policies on facial technology amid ongoing litigation, prompted by an incident where a pregnant woman was mistakenly charged with carjacking.
At the time, White emphasized that police must have additional evidence beyond facial recognition technology to establish a suspect’s capability, opportunity, and intent to commit a crime.
Under the terms of the agreement with Williams, Detroit police will review cases involving facial recognition use from 2017 to 2023. They will notify prosecutors if investigations reveal that arrests were made without corroborating evidence.
As Detroit grapples with the aftermath of settling with Robert Williams, the effects extend beyond the city’s borders. This agreement signals a move towards accountability and changes in how facial recognition technology is used, highlighting the need to balance innovation with civil rights.
Advertisement
Using this technology responsibly to pursue justice is crucial to prevent harm to individuals like Williams and promote fairness in communities.
Related Article: Meta Hit by a Lawsuit in Texas Due to its Facial Recognition Technology, Allegedly Violated the Users Privacy
ⓒ 2024 TECHTIMES.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
