Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Calls on Congress To Regulate Face Recognition (axios.com)
Addressing a growing concern by privacy advocates and users alike over the usage of facial recognition by government bodies, Microsoft urged the US government on Friday to start thinking about what limits should be set on the use of such technologies. From a report: In a blog post, Microsoft also said it is consulting with outside groups to help set its own policies for how it will use and sell such technology. Face recognition can be used for a range of purposes, from reuniting missing kids to mass surveillance. Currently, there are few rules for those using or selling the technology. "The only effective way to manage the use of technology by a government is for the government proactively to manage this use itself," Microsoft president Brad Smith said in a blog post. "And if there are concerns about how a technology will be deployed more broadly across society, the only way to regulate this broad use is for the government to do so." For its own part, Smith said Microsoft is going to move slowly on commercial use of face recognition while it explores what its own policies should be.
No facial information should be allowed to be stored by a government entity without a warrant. I would have thought that THAT is already covered by the constitution.
No private entity should be allowed to store facial recognition of an individual without that individual's explicit written consent- and should not be allowed to sell any data collected via means of facial recognition.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Microsoft is crying for regulation because they are so far behind.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
only way people can guard against abuse(and even just use) of facial recognition, is through knowing how it is done(where the cameras are, how the software works, what are details in database used) etc etc).
government should stick to facilitating opening all those details to everyone. it should not act to regulate that knowledge, as it wants, including to its own uses, without opening it up.
fingerprint, voiceprint, face rec, retina scans ANYTHING of that nature from now into the future that can be used to personally ID you - none of that data should be stored or sold.
I have enough trouble remembering who people are, and now I'm going to need a license?
Perfectly okay for Microsoft, Amazon, Google et al. though!
This includes facial recognition.
Oh, pro tip, change clothes, hats, wigs, glasses, alter your stride, stand next to different people, remember that face dazzle paint does work, and remember how they measure faces (points on nose, eyebrows, chin, mouth, cheekbones). Anything that alters those defeats all known facial recognition, even orange spray tans (sparkle rainbow is better, tho).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's getting old. The 2010s will be known as the decade where we all get f'd, have our privacy ripped from us and put is in positions where our creativity will stop because we are pounded down in to submission by technology used to evil.
Orwell had a tardis for sure.
It's relatively easy to build your own facial surveillance tools using open source software and wouldn't cost much to deploy across a town or part of a city. Same thing for automated license plate readers. And walking gait biometric trackers. And heart rate biometric trackers using the small variations in face color caused by heart beats. And to add activity recognition trackers. And to add radio signal trackers. And it's easy to get people to install software that tracks their activities on phones and computers. These kinds of surveillance are not limited to just governments and big companies, _everyone_ with a few skills can do it. As soon as the CEO's and politicians start realizing this by finding their faces, and cars, and biometrics being tracked and their activities being broadcast to the world, then you'll start to see new laws. Not sure they'll do much good though, there is no obviously effective way to police this. How do you tell what the intent is behind a tiny camera and computer sitting in some random location? How do you even tell if it's a camera/computer/radio? It doesn't have to look like one. You could build your own car/face/biometric surveillance system using a few $100 of cheap cellphones. People are likely already doing this. Soon you'll be able to buy complete systems on eBay.
The government is only half the problem, we had an article this week about malls tracking license plates and selling that data, no reason to expect that very soon they won't be doing the same using facial recognition.
You guys will just have to get comfortable wearing it to.
So in other words, Microsoft wants to be the first one to exploit it, because they have a lot of experience in mass surveillance (Windows 10).
Nobody ever came out and said, "Please pass a law so I can be forced to stop doing something I shouldn't be doing," no, it's always, "Please pass a law to force them to stop doing something that I don't like." - Robert A. Heinlein
The 2010's? This crap goes back to the 1990s, when a common hack used by "mean girls" was snail mail hell- get a large fashion magazine for $2.99 and fill out all the advertising postcards with your target's name and address..
It's just become more obvious and widespread. And is now on my cell phone with "Lisa" calling to let me know she wants to lower my interest rate on my credit cards I no longer have.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Microsoft can't seem to get their own facial recognition software working very well.
Check your premises.
Outlaw all face coverings....
Cold out? TOO BAD!
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Add that latter part and I will agree with you.
We need to nip this in the bud and neither the government, corporations, or individuals should be allowed to retain this information except in the very limited circumstance of ongoing investigations into SPECIFIC individuals, as in the case of in-store loss prevention due to shoplifting, or legally bonded private investigations. And in those cases they should be required to file a notification to local law enforcement that the surveillance is taking place. This likely requires some legislative changes to make it happen, since preceding generations didn't have to worry about this level of surveillance due to the associated costs, but now that it is here it should not be allowed to happen in places considered publicly trafficked regions.
>"The only effective way to manage the use of technology by a government is for the government proactively to manage this use itself,"
Also needs to cover private use and government contracts with private companies.
But that also depends on us actually believing the government will obey its own laws and regulations.... something I think many of us don't believe. Especially when you start throwing in the kinds of things the FBI, DHS, JD, ATF, CIA, DMV, ICA, etc, are tasked with doing.
Generally, the only safe data/information is that not collected in the first place. With video cameras being thrown into the public space in droves, RFID chips, web tracking, credit card tracking, phone tracking, TV/DVR tracking, car networks, EMRs, communications bugs (I mean "taps"), computers systems with seemingly unlimited storage, it seems unlikely we will really have any privacy in the future.
I doubt there are any good intentions here. Microsoft is likely seeking to undercut rivals and prepare the ground for its lobbyists to write the laws. They are probably feeling a bit too comfortable with their vastly underpowered and over-expensive deep learning machines, and are trying to muscle a monopoly in that area.
I mean... it's not like every other attempt to ban or regulate what sort of software people are allowed to write and use has failed comically or anything. Yup. PGP, Gnutella, Bittorrent... they're all just distant memories that no one uses anymore.
Imagine all the people...
Surely it's not evil. The question is rather what the surveillance data is used for. Is there a legitimate business, that serves the individual rights, or is the data used for the suppression of these rights or for fraud, theft or blackmailing.
The best defence against the misuse of knowledge (or data) is the separation of state from the economy and the protection of free speech and other actual individual rights.
Privacy is a value, but it should not be mistaken as the absolute value, that would eg undermine other values or rights.
Anyway, to protect all rights, one should be very cautious about letting the technology giants to "co-operate" with the government to regulate themselves. The business models of the enterprises are not most likely affected anyway, but some legitimate models of competitors may be.