Slashdot Mirror
Al Franken Calls for Tight Rules on Facial Recognition Software
angry tapir writes "The U.S. Congress may need to pass legislation that limits the way government agencies and private companies use facial recognition technology to identify people, according to U.S. Senator Al Franken, who chairs the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's privacy subcommittee. The growing use of facial recognition technology raises serious privacy and civil liberties concerns, according to the senator, who has called on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and Facebook to change the way they use facial recognition technology."
Derrick Harris of GigaOM says "My gut instinct is to call Senator Al Franken a well-meaning fool when it comes to his latest outcry," but concedes that in this case "he actually has a point." Harris writes in an editorial
that "If you've heard about Alessandro Acquisti's work with the technology, you know why this possibility should be a little scary. Snap a photo of someone with a smartphone, analyze an image against a database of social media or Flickr pics and, voila, you have a name. From there, it's easy to get someone's age, hometown, interests, news coverage, you name it."
Related: judgecorp writes "YouTube has added a tool which automatically detects and anonymises faces in uploaded videos. YouTube parent Google says it is intended to allow dissidents in places like Syria to share videos without risking reprisals form the government — but it warned that this is not an exact science, so users should check videos through before making them public."
Facial Recognition Software is great because if you leave your "papers" at home they will still be able to identify you.
In addition, they will also have access to your: personality profile, criminal records, court records, land records, birth certificate, marriage certificate, political contributions, address, phone number, date of birth, and embarrassing photos of you drunk in college.
Technology is too good! We need to outlaw it!
This is another case if outlawing technology. Someone can look at a person, compare them to a lineup of photos, and then look them up in a phonebook and call them. But because a computer can do it so much better and so much quicker, we are scared and feel the need to censor progress. What about the freedom to take photos? The freedom to process photos?
I can only imagine that when someone invents teleportation, it will be outlawed and the designs burned and the inventor executed, because of the fear that 75% of the population will lose their jobs.
When are we going to accept change and take steps to live within that world? If you are so afraid of it, then stop putting your photo online? If you are a celebrity, then too bad.
I do agree that the government shouldn't be monitoring without a warrant though. Just like they aren't supposed to before technology.
On one hand, I get concerned anytime someone wants to regulate a new technology. There is no immediate safety issue or security issue, so my initial reaction to a congresscritter wanting to dictate its usage is negative. Society has adapted to and will continue to adapt to advances in technology, so I don't see the benefit in creating a set of rules and procedures around the appropriate use of the technology.
On the other hand, we certainly see an erosion of privacy in ways that we cou;dn't have imagined a few decades ago. So much of our lives are online, but it is very easy to opt out of Facebook or Google+ (those 12 of us who are part of it). But if this network extends into "real life" and can be married up to financial accounts and transactions made on credit card or debit cards, the mind boggles at the possibilites.
The real issue in my mind is who this information belongs to. Is information about my purchase owned by me, by the party I do business with, the credit card company, all of the above? Should there be limitations in place on how this information gets shared? How in the world do you enforce a set of rules like this?
And if you've been keeping score, I provided zero answers to any of the questions I raise. I don't have any to be honest. But yes, this is a weighty decision, but likely one that is long overdue.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Genies don't go back into bottles.
And you can't regulate thought, even if some people are virtual cyborgs who do some of their thinking outside of their own bodies. If I already have the capacity to recognizes faces, there's nothing really all that bad about me getting a thousand times better at it. People's memory of having seen others, is already a "privacy concern", whether they are computer aided or not, but it's a realtively unimportant concern compared to others, and we're just quibbling about scale.
It's also bizarre prioritizing. Mass surveillance is working because We The People ultimately have no real problem with the basic idea of it, we have decided we'd rather not require warrants, and stuff like that. Why should we concentrate on one detail for how people are being tracked (faces), when we don't care about any of the others (license plates on cars, people carrying active transmitters of unique ids, etc)? We should change our mind and decide that we want privacy, before we start arguing about specific techs.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What about dissidents here in Google's home country, the United States of America?
Now I'm confused. Was "dissidents" a misspelling of traitors, terrorists, pedophiles, or pirates?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Snap a photo of someone with a smartphone, analyze an image against a database of social media or Flickr pics and, voila, you have a name. From there, it's easy to get someone's age, hometown, interests, news coverage, you name it."
Interesting tech, and more than a little bit scary. However, I don't think that congress passing a law restricting it is going to slow our march toward cyberpunk dystopia one bit. In the post-9/11 security state, it's an absolute certainty that the three-letter agencies will continue to develop and use face recognition, and pretty much a given that soon afterward local cops will be using their hand-me-downs on routine drug cases (just like GPS trackers and smartphone data loggers). Businesses big enough to have offshore tax shelters will just build offshore data-processing shelters, streaming images from their front door cameras to foreign locales to be analyzed by restricted facial-recognition algorithms and customer profiles back in real time. In the end this would only bite individuals and small businesses (much like our allegedly-high taxes).
0 1 - just my two bits
Technology is too good! We need to outlaw it!
I think it's more along the lines of "technology is very powerful and often allows us to carry out our wildest dreams -- no matter how bad or good they are." I don't think he's pushing for outlawing it altogether but just regulating it. Examples I can think of include when we know a corporation is using it to, say, profile customers who visit public stores and shop in certain sections (without explicit consent) or say that the Church of Scientology decides to use it at protests. Is it wrong to regulate that kind of usage of it? Actually can you please explain where Franken said we need to "outlaw it"? Because you seem to be pushing this to an extreme to invalidate his point.
This is another case if outlawing technology. Someone can look at a person, compare them to a lineup of photos, and then look them up in a phonebook and call them. But because a computer can do it so much better and so much quicker, we are scared and feel the need to censor progress. What about the freedom to take photos? The freedom to process photos?
I can only imagine that when someone invents teleportation, it will be outlawed and the designs burned and the inventor executed, because of the fear that 75% of the population will lose their jobs.
Technology is powerful, there's no way to argue with that. Look at the evolution of guns. Look at the advent of the Maxim gun. Do you think that the laws at the time covered cases where people start stockpiling automatic weapons? Technology has the power to enable to the user past their original abilities and as such, yes, we do find ourselves forced to regulate certain extremes. You can only imagine that the designs would be burned and inventor executed because that's what Al Franken is proposing we do to facial recognition? Try not to hyperbole on your way to the parking lot. We wouldn't outlaw teleportation used for transportation of goods and services, hell, why do you think we built the interstate highway system!? We would outlaw the use of teleporation to rob your neighbor's home or banks!
When are we going to accept change and take steps to live within that world? If you are so afraid of it, then stop putting your photo online? If you are a celebrity, then too bad.
I do agree that the government shouldn't be monitoring without a warrant though. Just like they aren't supposed to before technology.
Yep, it's okay that this hurts everyone else right up until Big Brother and Evil Corp are using it to track/profile/target you and your family. Then I'll bet you'll come around to Al Franken's regulation of this technology in both private corporation and government sectors.
My work here is dung.
You do realize that this is about federal agencies, right? You know that the reason the cops cannot just commandeer your house is because of a law passed by Congress.
Palm trees and 8
I create a high-speed facial recognition camera and sell a network of my devices set up along highways and major streets. I can with good accuracy identify people based on social media and I can track roughly the travel of millions of citizens a day. I can even quickly install temporary cameras around "problem areas." Now, the government probably can't buy this system, but they can license access to my database the same way the government has been licensing access to Total Information Awareness data mining databases from the private sector. Still don't see a problem?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Snap a photo of someone with a smartphone, analyze an image against a database of social media or Flickr pics and, voila, you have a name. From there, it's easy to get someone's age, hometown, interests, news coverage, you name it.
Finally a solution for stalking pretty girls in bars ;-)
FTFY.
Wait... anyone else have a sudden feeling of deja vu ?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
He grills the FBI for it, too. This was part of the House Judiciary Committee, after all.
That part didn't make it into title, though, only the summary, so I understand your confusion. It's very difficult to read the article before commenting, and I guess now it's difficult to read the summary.
You do realize that this is about federal agencies, right? You know that the reason the cops cannot just commandeer your house is because of a law passed by Congress.
No, that's in the Constitution. Congress has the power to GIVE cops that right, but have chosen not to do so yet.
Congress has the power to GIVE cops that right
No it most certainly does not have the power to do that. Not by any sane reading of the 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments it does not. Don't even suggest those guys have that kind of power, because that just makes them think they do, and we have a lousy SCOTUS bench right now that will knuckle under and go along with it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
A voting district has a history of supporting a particular party. A rich organization sets up a camera outside the voting building and lets it be known that if anyone votes they will pay for it. Therefore the party that would have gained a number of votes from that district in fact does not. With elections being so close today an election could be won or lost with this technology.
Regulation is bad. Right? The free market will take care of everything, including our privacy. Right? RIGHT?
Actually I was conflating quartering soldiers with facial recognition. My point was that it is not as though the law is irrelevant when it comes to how the government behaves or how our rights are protected. We do not just reach for our guns whenever there is a new threat to our rights; we pass laws to protect those rights in a changing world.
To put it another way, how else do you expect to prevent the police from using facial recognition systems to further expand their power? We are not going to walk around wearing masks, nor are we going to wear high intensity IR LEDs on our foreheads. Either we need to vote to stop the use of such systems without a warrant, or we need to accept that our rights will be eroded by new technology.
Palm trees and 8
Does it matter? Tell me, which party is in favor of more individual liberty, less government intrusion? Is it the bureaucracy-saves-the-children Democrats, or the military-saves-the-world Republicans?
Currently hooked on AMP
What about dissidents here in Google's home country, the United States of America?
Now I'm confused. Was "dissidents" a misspelling of traitors, terrorists, pedophiles, or pirates?
It's a shame that this old AC was being serious in his post (which keeps it's original Score: 0). But your satirical reply has earned you a +4 Funny.
What about us dissidents here in the USA? I assume, of course, that Google also has a de-obfuscation filter to HELP identify us :(
Actually, I was going for irony rather than satire, but that's OK, too.
Any dissident in the US will inevitably be castigated as a pirate or pedophile or terrorist or traitor or a member of some other group that it's acceptable to impugn unconditionally. In the old days they would have been labeled "unAmerican pinko commies" but that's almost comically retro nowadays, while alleging that they're "sexual deviants" is quite ineffective.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Way to miss the point. He's saying that a libertarian should, logically, be in favor of a law that sets limits on government power. Much as the 4th Amendment (a law) prevents the government from turning your house into a barracks. As generally libertarian as this site is, I'm amazed that I haven't seen a single positive comment on this idea yet. Surely, whatever your opinion on Franken, the idea that the there should be limits on government use and abuse of facial recognition software is a win for both privacy and liberty. So far the comment all seem to lean toward "Al Franken is a liberal idiot so his idea much be awful no matter how much I might applaud if Ron Paul had said it".
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Wow, are you a natural-born asshole, or do you have to work at it?
You know you're absolutely right... its not like there are any guys out there stalking women, or that someone fresh out on parole for rape charge wouldn't want to be able to find out where that pretty girl he just got a shot of on his cell phone lives. Please engage your brain before opening your mouth. Just because you don't care if everyone on the planet knows where you live and what you do, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be protecting people's privacy for a whole host of good reasons. Most of all, the government, shouldn't be able to surveille you at a whim. The one place where regulations are a damn good thing... regulations on government power. So I tend to agree... Senator Frankin has a point whether your fer'im or agin'im.
That line of reasoning applies to private property.
Public property is a different matter, and government should always be treated differently when it comes to the acquisition and use of information. They have considerably more power than the average person on FaceStupid. It's a rather basic principle in Game Theory.
If you allow the government to have ubiquitous surveillance in all public areas you have are preventing anybody from exercising their right to simply not be there. Staying inside your house all the time, without considerable subsidies from Mommy(tm), is not possible for a normal person.
While I cannot stop my friends from putting up pictures with me in it on FaceStupid, and allowing FaceStupid to figure out who I am and then attempt to use that in marketing tactics, I can ask for laws to prevent the government from accessing or using that information.
Which, by the way, would be extremely prudent. I don't know where you live, but there are plenty of places on this planet where you can be harmed or killed simply because of your beliefs and associations. The best way to prevent that in a so-called advanced society is to have laws and practices which prevent any powerful group from obtaining tools that can be used against the populace in such ways. That is not paranoia either, contrary to the popular claims that it is. There is nothing irrational or delusional about simply remembering history, and even now, just being aware of current events.
While we are at it, I would *love* a law that prevents FaceStupid from using in any way any data obtained from facial recognition if they don't have a contract with me. My friends can store the information if they so choose, but FaceStupid cannot use it for any other processes other than categorization and display purposes for my friends.
Of course, I can hear you and others saying that is regulation going to far and it is ridiculous of me to want to control my information once it is out there, etc., etc., etc. However, corporations are not people and should be recognized for having the power that they have along with government.
It's insane to treat all entities the same when it comes to information regardless of differing levels of power.
Wow, are you a natural-born asshole...
I doubt he works at it harder than Al Franken does.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Very few people are horrible with faces. Imagine all the unique faces you have seen in your life. Its the face-to-name connection that people sometimes have a hard time with. Quite honestly, i usually forget people's name right after i meet them unless they are very interesting. Even hot women's names drop from memory almost immediately unless they are smart too.
My father-in-law had a stroke and it broke his facial recognition. His wife could walk up to him and if she didnt speak, he would have a hard time knowing it was her. He is a locally famous psychologist, with MANY clients, so often he will have what he assumes are strangers coming up and hugging him all the time.
Good-bye
Most reps and senators are honorable people, there are a few bad eggs. Yesterday in front of the House Armed Services Committee, they had heads of several corporations that supply the military, Lockheed-Martin was one I recall, but they also had some smaller firms and even very small firms. Several on the committee encouraged the panel to tell them what to do, raise taxes or cut expenditures. To a man and a woman, the panel said it was not their job to tell Congress what to do, they were only there to point out the effects of Sequestration were it to happen (actually, the effects are already starting because businesses have to plan ahead). To a man and woman, the Committee claimed they didn't want Sequestration but it is there and they must do something about it.
Then a congressman from Ohio got his chance, last name was Ryan I believe (not the well-known Ryan). Dunno if he was Dem or Rep. He told off the panel by saying that every Tom, Dick, and Mary, and Jane had advice: don't raise taxes, keep all services. In short, he accused the panel of doing the same by refusing to answer what they thought Congress should do. The result was that there is no consensus from the American people about what Congress should do, but they expect Congress to fix the problem the people helped to create by voting in representatives, senators, and presidents but never calling them to task for the financial problems.
The point: it is the American people which caused Congress's spending and taxing problems, not the other way around. So stop acting like you somehow have Seen the Light and Congress is full of jackals. It isn't. It is the American People who refuse to take responsibility and tell Congress they are willing to bear increased taxes and decreased expenditures to fix the budget.
And as much as I don't like Al Franken and believe he has no sense of fiscal responsibility believing government can solve everything and bring to the Promised Bunny Land, one thing he is not is corrupt.
No. The fourth amendment only guarantees just compensation, in the event that government seizes your home for use as a barracks. It does not actually prohibit the government from moving soldiers into your home.
"The People are irresponsible" is not really a full picture. Most voter have a pretty clear idea that they want small government/few services, or large government/lots of services. Say, 40% and 40%. It's the minority that swings things to irrationality. If we're voting on spending, we get the 40% large goverment folks, plus the 20% irrational idiots voting for (so it passes). If it's taxes/tax cuts, we get the 40% small government plus the 20% irrationals voting for it (so it passes). We have yet to find a way to tie spending to taxes in a concrete enough way to force the 20% to face reality. They just keep blaming foriegn aid, illegal immigrants, welfare cheats, corporations, whatever, for deficits.