Tech & Science: San Francisco banned facial recognition tech. Here’s why other cities should too. - PressFrom - United Kingdom
  •   
  •   

Tech & ScienceSan Francisco banned facial recognition tech. Here’s why other cities should too.

18:15  16 may  2019
18:15  16 may  2019 Source:   vox.com

Google launches global council to advise on AI and tech ethics

Google launches global council to advise on AI and tech ethics Google launches global council to advise on AI and tech ethics

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco , long at the heart of the technology revolution, took a stand against potential abuse on Tuesday by banning the use of facial recognition software by the police and other agencies.

Legislators in San Francisco have voted to ban the use of facial recognition , the first US city to do so. The emerging technology will not be allowed to be used by local agencies, such as the city ’ s transport authority, or law enforcement. Additionally, any plans to buy any kind of new surveillance

San Francisco banned facial recognition tech. Here’s why other cities should too. © Adapted from Getty Images An illustration of a face scan.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Don’t want constant surveillance? We can fight back.

San Francisco has become the first US city to ban the use of facial recognition technology by the police and local government agencies. This is a huge win for those who argue that the tech — which can identify an individual by analyzing their facial features in images, in videos, or in real time — carries risks so serious that they far outweigh any benefits.

Amazon shareholders will vote to ban facial recognition tech

Amazon shareholders will vote to ban facial recognition tech Amazon shareholders will vote to ban the company's controversial facial recognition technology next week in a key symbolic process. Amazon set the vote date, May 22nd, after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rejected the company's request to have the motion squashed. A group of shareholders, led by nonprofit Open MIC, asked Amazon's board to stop selling the deep learning tools until a third party can confirm "it does not cause or contribute to actual or potential violations of human rights." On a technical basis, a vote to ban the technology might not mean much, as shareholder resolutions aren't binding and are rarely approved.

San Francisco became the first major city Tuesday to ban police and other local officials from using facial recognition technology . "I think part of San Fransisco being the real and perceived headquarters for all things tech also comes with a responsibility for its local legislators," Peskin said.

San Francisco supervisors have voted to make the city the first in the United States to ban police and other government agencies from using facial recognition technology . Supervisors voted eight to one in favor of the “Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance”, which will also strengthen existing oversight

The “Stop Secret Surveillance” ordinance, which passed 8-1 in a Tuesday vote by the city’s Board of Supervisors, will also prevent city agencies from adopting any other type of surveillance tech (say, automatic license plate readers) until the public has been given notice and the board has had a chance to vote on it.

The ban on facial recognition tech doesn’t apply to businesses, individuals, or federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration at San Francisco International Airport. But the limits it places on police are important, especially for marginalized and overpoliced communities.

Although the tech is pretty good at identifying white male faces, because those are the sorts of faces it’s been trained on, it often misidentifies people of color and women. That bias could lead to them being disproportionately held for questioning when law enforcement agencies put the tech to use.

US facial recognition will cover 97 percent of departing airline passengers within four years

US facial recognition will cover 97 percent of departing airline passengers within four years Biometric Exit is already used at 15 US airports

Legislators in San Francisco have voted to ban the use of facial recognition , the first US city to do so. The emerging technology will not be allowed to be used by local agencies, such as the city ’ s transport authority, or law enforcement. Additionally, any plans to buy any kind of new surveillance

San Francisco is following through on talk of banning facial recognition tech . The city ' s Board of Supervisors has voted 8-1 in favor of a bill, the Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance, that It' s also liable to frustrate Amazon and other companies selling facial recognition tech to city governments.

San Francisco banned facial recognition tech. Here’s why other cities should too. © Getty

San Francisco’s new ban may inspire other cities to follow suit. Later this month, Oakland, California, will weigh whether to institute its own ban. Washington state and Massachusetts are considering similar measures.

But some argue that outlawing facial recognition tech is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. They say the software can help with worthy aims, like finding missing children and elderly adults or catching criminals and terrorists. Microsoft president Brad Smith has said it would be “cruel” to altogether stop selling the software to government agencies. This camp wants to see the tech regulated, not banned.

Yet there’s good reason to think regulation won’t be enough. For one thing, the danger of this tech is not well understood by the general public — not least because it’s been marketed to us as convenient (Facebook will tag your friends’ faces for you in pictures), cute (phone apps will let you put funny filters on your face), and cool (the latest iPhone’s Face ID makes it the shiny new must-have gadget).

The Ever photo app turned users’ private snaps into AI facial recognition fodder

The Ever photo app turned users’ private snaps into AI facial recognition fodder Photo app Ever pivoted its business without informing users

San Francisco could become the first U. S . city to ban the use of facial recognition technology Hepner told the tech publication that San Francisco officials don't know what surveillance As previously reported, facial recognition technology from Amazon and other companies has been

If a local tech industry critic has his way, San Francisco could become the first US city to ban its agencies from using facial recognition technology . Aaron Peskin, a member of the city ’ s Board of Supervisors, proposed the ban Tuesday as part of a suite of rules to enhance surveillance oversight.

What’s more, the market for this tech is so lucrative that there are strong financial incentives to keep pushing it into more areas of our lives in the absence of a ban. AI is also developing so fast that regulators would likely have to play whack-a-mole as they struggle to keep up with evolving forms of facial recognition. The risks of this tech — including the risk that it will fuel racial discrimination — are so great that there’s a strong argument for implementing a ban like the one San Francisco has passed.

A ban is an extreme measure, yes. But a tool that enables a government to immediately identify us anytime we cross the street is so inherently dangerous that treating it with extreme caution makes sense. Instead of starting from the assumption that facial recognition is permissible — which is the de facto reality we’ve unwittingly gotten used to as tech companies marketed the software to us unencumbered by legislation — we’d do better to start from the assumption that it’s banned, then carve out rare exceptions for specific cases when it might be warranted.

Woody Harrelson photo used in investigation into lookalike beer thief

Woody Harrelson photo used in investigation into lookalike beer thief First a 'Ross from Friends' lookalike was snapped carrying beers after allegedly stealing a wallet in Blackpool, now a Woody Harrleson lookalike in New York has been pictured also making off with beer. Police in New York were investigating a beer thief and were initially stumped when the CCTV was too poor quality to be run through their facial recognition software. Investigators then made a vital connection. The suspect was the spitting image for Hollywood star Woody Harrelson.

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco officials on Tuesday, May 14, voted 8 to 1 to ban the purchase and use of facial recognition technology by city personnel, in a move to regulate tools that local Silicon Valley companies helped develop. The ordinance, which also would require city departments to

Facial recognition tech is a bit iffy in the sense that while it might be useful and quite amazing in terms of it being a technological feat, there So much so that last month, the city of San Francisco mulled the idea of possibly banning the use of facial recognition tech , and now it looks like that ban has

San Francisco banned facial recognition tech. Here’s why other cities should too. © BB2ziz0

The case for banning facial recognition tech

Proponents of a ban have put forward a number of arguments for it. First, there’s the well-documented fact that human bias can creep into AI. Often, this manifests as a problem with the training data that goes into AIs: If designers mostly feed the systems examples of white male faces, and don’t think to diversify their data, the systems won’t learn to properly recognize women and people of color.

In 2015, Google’s image recognition system labeled African Americans as “gorillas.” Three years later, Amazon’s Rekognition system matched 28 members of Congress to criminal mug shots. Another study found that three facial recognition systems — IBM, Microsoft, and China’s Megvii — were more likely to misidentify the gender of dark-skinned people (especially women) than of light-skinned people.

Even if all the technical issues were to be fixed and facial recognition tech completely de-biased, would that stop the software from harming our society when it’s deployed in the real world? Not necessarily, as a new report from the AI Now Institute explains.

San Francisco banned facial recognition tech. Here’s why other cities should too. © Getty

Say the tech gets just as good at identifying black people as it is at identifying white people. That may not actually be a positive change. Given that the black community is already overpoliced in the US, making black faces more legible to this tech and then giving the tech to police could just exacerbate discrimination. As Zoé Samudzi wrote at the Daily Beast, “It is not social progress to make black people equally visible to software that will inevitably be further weaponized against us.”

Are police illegally using facial recognition tech?

Are police illegally using facial recognition tech? Are police illegally using facial recognition tech?

SAN FRANCISCO - San Francisco officials on Tuesday voted 8 to 1 to ban the purchase and use of facial recognition technology by city personnel, in a move to regulate tools that local Silicon Valley companies helped develop.

But San Francisco was the first to ban facial recognition outright by city departments, a law that will go into effect 180 days after a second reading of the measure next week. The law does not prohibit companies or individuals from using facial recognition cameras or other surveillance tools, or from

Woodrow Hartzog and Evan Selinger, a law professor and a philosophy professor, respectively, argued last year in an important essay that facial recognition tech is inherently damaging to our social fabric. “The mere existence of facial recognition systems, which are often invisible, harms civil liberties, because people will act differently if they suspect they’re being surveilled,” they wrote. The worry is that there’ll be a chilling effect on freedom of speech, assembly, and religion.

It’s not hard to imagine some people becoming too nervous to show up at a protest, say, or a mosque, especially given the way law enforcement has already used facial recognition tech. As Recode’s Shirin Ghaffary noted, Baltimore police used it to identify and arrest protesters of Freddie Gray’s death.

Hartzog and Selinger also note that our faces are something we can’t change (at least not without surgery), that they’re central to our identity, and that they’re all too easily captured from a distance (unlike fingerprints or iris scans). If we don’t ban facial recognition before it becomes more entrenched, they argue, “people won’t know what it’s like to be in public without being automatically identified, profiled, and potentially exploited.”

San Francisco banned facial recognition tech. Here’s why other cities should too. © Getty

Facial recognition: “the plutonium of AI”?

Luke Stark, a digital media scholar who works for Microsoft Research Montreal, made another argument for a ban in a recent article titled “Facial recognition is the plutonium of AI.”

Comparing software to a radioactive element may seem over-the-top, but Stark insists the analogy is apt. Plutonium is the biologically toxic element used to make atomic bombs, and just as its toxicity comes from its chemical structure, the danger of facial recognition is ineradicably, structurally embedded within it. “Facial recognition, simply by being designed and built, is intrinsically socially toxic, regardless of the intentions of its makers; it needs controls so strict that it should be banned for almost all practical purposes,” he writes.

Facial recognition technology: Who watches the watchers?

Facial recognition technology: Who watches the watchers? Facial recognition technology: Who watches the watchers?

But San Francisco was the first to ban facial recognition outright by city departments, a law that will go into effect 180 days after a second reading of the measure next week. Facial - recognition “poses a threat to people of color and would supercharge biased government surveillance of our communities

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco supervisors voted Tuesday to ban the use of facial recognition software by police and other city departments, becoming the first U. S . city to outlaw a rapidly developing technology that has alarmed privacy and civil liberties advocates.

Stark agrees with the pro-ban arguments listed above but says there’s another, even deeper issue with facial ID systems — that “they attach numerical values to the human face at all.” He explains:

Facial recognition technologies and other systems for visually classifying human bodies through data are inevitably and always means by which “race,” as a constructed category, is defined and made visible. Reducing humans into sets of legible, manipulable signs has been a hallmark of racializing scientific and administrative techniques going back several hundred years.

The mere fact of numerically classifying and schematizing human facial features is dangerous, he says, because it enables governments and companies to divide us into different races. It’s a short leap from having that capability to “finding numerical reasons for construing some groups as subordinate, and then reifying that subordination by wielding the ‘charisma of numbers’ to claim subordination is a ‘natural’ fact.”

Gallery: From cashier-free stores to home robots, Amazon's plans to take over the world (Lovemoney)

San Francisco banned facial recognition tech. Here’s why other cities should too.

In other words, racial categorization too often feeds racial discrimination. This is not a far-off hypothetical but a current reality: China is already using facial recognition to track Uighur Muslims. As the New York Times reported last month, “The facial recognition technology, which is integrated into China’s rapidly expanding networks of surveillance cameras, looks exclusively for Uighurs based on their appearance and keeps records of their comings and goings for search and review.” This “automated racism” makes it easier for China to round up Uighurs and detain them in internment camps.

Stark, who specifically mentions the case of the Uighurs, concludes that the risks of this tech vastly outweigh the benefits. He does concede that there might be very rare use cases where the tech could be allowed under a strong regulatory scheme — for example, as an accessibility tool for the visually impaired. But, he argues, we need to start with the assumption that the tech is banned and make exceptions to that rule, not proceed as if the tech is the rule and regulation is the exception.

“To avoid the social toxicity and racial discrimination it will bring,” he writes, “facial recognition technologies need to be understood for what they are: nuclear-level threats to be handled with extraordinary care.”

Just as several nations came together to create the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the 1960s to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, San Francisco may now serve as a beacon to other cities, showing that it’s possible to say no to the spread of a risky new technology that would make us identifiable and surveillable anywhere we go.

We may have been largely hypnotized by facial recognition’s seeming convenience, cuteness, and coolness when it was first introduced to us. But it’s not too late to wake up.

MSN UK are Empowering Happiness for mental health awareness month. Find out more about our campaign and the charities working to stop people falling into crisis here.

Police need huge IT upgrade for legal facial recognition.
Huge investment will be needed to upgrade police IT systems to ensure the use of facial recognition technology is legal, Sky News has learnt. Metropolitan Police has run 10 trials of live facial recognition technology which scanned the faces of the public against a database of people of interest. But the force's back-end IT systems are not capable of letting officers check whether the images on the database are being held legally. Johanna Morley, the Met's senior technologist, told Sky News that this governance of the watch-list was a matter of concern.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 0
This is interesting!