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.

55 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Should require a warrant by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Should require a warrant by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "store"? If I run your photo through my open source facial recognition software is that storing it?

    2. Re:Should require a warrant by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And to think that two days ago we were worried about ICE requesting license plate information from malls in California.

      Hint: Any camera that can do license plate OCR, can *also* do facial recognition OCR.

      Privacy is a losing battle. NO way this won't be abused, and no law is going to stop it.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:Should require a warrant by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Funny

      can *also* do facial recognition OCR.

      Well, I don't have to worry about that, then. You do, of course, because you're quite the character.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:Should require a warrant by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The Constitution was created before the invention of the Photograph Camera.

      I am sure biometrics tracking wasn't considered an issue at the time.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Should require a warrant by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even want to guess at how many mug shots law enforcement has.

    6. Re:Should require a warrant by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 2

      I'll go out on a limb here and state that this is not the best congress to appeal to for protections of civil liberties. I suppose it's less bad than the Bush 2 era, but still.

    7. Re:Should require a warrant by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Facial optical character recognition? So, what, it turns your expression into emoji?

      That actually sounds pretty cool.

    8. Re:Should require a warrant by pr0fessor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You should worry about your data not because of the government or law enforcement but because of identity theft and fraud. We know that no system is absolutely secure and that the larger the data the more valuable it is and the bigger a target it is for those that would take advantage of it.

       

    9. Re:Should require a warrant by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    10. Re:Should require a warrant by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      True. Having gone from the extreme left to the extreme right to right off the map since my usenet days, I could easily find myself the target of some crazy identity group at any time. And that isn't even including identity groups that have members in law enforcement.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    11. Re:Should require a warrant by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Heck, that's even an Azure service these days:
      https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-services/emotion/

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    12. Re:Should require a warrant by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      That problem will go away within the next 80 years, as the database gets updated with social media pictures taken by 6MP cmos sensors or better included on every cell phone.

      Just about everybody's facial identity already exists somewhere.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    13. Re:Should require a warrant by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

      Sure, but I was imagining video of crowds walking down a street with superimposed emojis.

      Officer Wilkins, we a group of hoodies that are up to no good. Just look at this: >:) :-3

    14. Re:Should require a warrant by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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.

      Which part of the Constitution covers this? Do you consider a photo of someone to be a search, or is it a seizure? Is it abridging the freedom to keep and bear arms? I'm trying to figure out what specific part of that document prohibits this. I am asking. What do you think covers this?

      Keep in mind that schools are clearly "government entities", and every K-12 school I've attended has created a yearbook with each student's photo in it, along with group photos for clubs and sports teams. They are also now creating photo ids for students, as does the university (a "government entity" state uni) have both student and faculty IDs with photos. They keep those photos so they can reprint an ID when necessary. If you go to work for the government, you will have your photo taken to be used for IDs.

      And not to mention mug shots of arrested (but not yet convicted) people, security tapes of federal and state facilities, etc. If the Constitution forbids this, I would have thought it would have appeared before SCOTUS already. Did I miss the case where a suspect had his photo removed from the mugshot archive as unconstitutional?

      No private entity should be allowed to store facial recognition of an individual without that individual's explicit written consent-

      So I cannot take a picture of anything that has someone else in it without their written permission? It has long been the legal landscape where I cannot use their image for commercial purposes, but I can certainly take photos for my own use. In fact, a lot of photos people routinely take are selfies of themselves and their friends. Does everyone need a written release for each image, or is one written release covering all photos including that person good enough under the law you want?

    15. Re:Should require a warrant by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The Constitution was created before the invention of the Photograph Camera.

      I am sure biometrics tracking wasn't considered an issue at the time.

      No, but it did address searching. Searching through a facial database should be covered by that.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:Should require a warrant by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      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.

      Which part of the Constitution covers this? Do you consider a photo of someone to be a search?

      Doing a facial scan of someone and storing where they have been and are going is an illegal search. It's just a more efficient way than cops breaking in your house and searching your pockets for ticket stubs, and your shoes for bits of earth.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re: Should require a warrant by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      I got the joke at least. I recognize that you're quite the character thanks to my optic nerves.

    18. Re:Should require a warrant by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      You must have no family. Especially mothers, grandmothers, and aunts and great-aunts and cousins.....seems every few months one of them has a "1970s photos scanning party" and tags me in a bunch of pictures I was hoping were long buried.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    19. Re:Should require a warrant by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Doing a facial scan of someone and storing where they have been and are going is an illegal search.

      That's not what you said. You said: "No facial information should be allowed to be stored by a government entity without a warrant." A picture of someone's face is "facial information". Where does the Constitution prohibit the storage of a picture of someone's face by a government?

    20. Re:Should require a warrant by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Doing a facial scan of someone and storing where they have been and are going is an illegal search.

      I am not a cop. Is there already a law that says I can't take a photograph of the Grand Canyon that has other people in it, where I chatted with them and discovered they're going to check out Monument Valley next? Or are you suggesting we need a new law to prevent me from doing that?

      On thing's for sure: once I have that photo, you will never know what I did with it. Any laws against my further analyzing the photo cannot possibly be enforced. It's mine and you simply don't have the surveillance technology to be able to detect my thoughtcrimes.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    21. Re:Should require a warrant by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > it's less bad than the Bush 2 era, but still.

      That's not for lack of trying. 45 is a whole lot more malicious and malignant than the worst hyperbole ever uttered about Bush #2. The difference is that Dubya knew enough to surround himself with competent people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove. 45, OTOH, tolerates the presence of no one who is not a sycophantic yes-man.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    22. Re:Should require a warrant by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      Obviously, would require no drivers license, passport, no voter ID card... one of those would make the social media posts meaningless after handing over a HQ photo and SSN.

    23. Re:Should require a warrant by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US has powerful federal privacy protections to stop any federal database of people getting collected at a US gov level.
      The way other federal law enforcement agencies work around set of privacy laws that is:

      Perfect the hardware and software to detect faces using federal criminals faces already in the federal criminal databases.
      Tell every US sate and city that the powerful, expensive and new software exists but it has no real time use.
      Provide federal funding to any state interested in any federal state task force for any reason a sate wants.
      The state police then fills their own database in real time with data sets they are working on. CCTV, public/private partnerships, anything allowed at the state level
      At no time did the US federal gov create any working federal database with federal funds that can look over the entire US population.
      All the US gov ever did was contract for/test some new software with a very limited set of federal criminal images.
      Offer the same software support to all states.
      The US Constitution and any 1970-1990's federal database collection privacy laws are fully understood when state police make an ID and arrest :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    24. Re:Should require a warrant by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Won't require a warrant after Kavanaugh is confirmed.

  2. Because they have no worthwhile software by bluelip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft is crying for regulation because they are so far behind.

    --

    Yep, I never spell check.
    More incorrect spellings can be found he
    1. Re:Because they have no worthwhile software by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That is normally how it goes.
      Those who can do, do.
      Those who can't, regulate.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Because they have no worthwhile software by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      They don't want other brands getting their ads connected to real people before MS is ready.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  3. open it! by sittingnut · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:open it! by snapsnap · · Score: 1

      Or wear IR diodes from remote controls around your neck. My nephew did that for a science fair project last year. It was amusing until he walked into a bank...

    2. Re:open it! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Step 1) Buy a camera
      Step 2) Take a photo
      Step 3) Go to https://cmusatyalab.github.io/... and install the software
      Step 4) Profit

    3. Re:open it! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Given modern AI processors, not all the details are knowable. But it should be pretty easy to fool- with a rubber face mask and a pair of mirror shades. I know my face unlock on my phone can't recognize me with my glasses on- which I need to see the screen that is recognizing me.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:open it! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The problem with Regulating technology. Is that advanced tech today will be cheap an mainstream in a decade. And with or without regulation it will be too cheap and easy to enforce.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:open it! by sittingnut · · Score: 1, Insightful

      to generalize, so called modern "AI" is just data analysis, running on deterministic processors, using fuzzy logic aimed getting imperfect faster approximate results, rather than perfect results(which in some problems, especially real life problems. is impossible or near that).
      as such what is done, is "knowable". there is no secret knowledge there.
      secrets are due to humans rather than process or technology

    6. Re:open it! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The ratio of human beings who are software engineers to begin with is less than 1%.

      In this era of Javascript kiddies, want to make a guess at how many people understand "Fuzzy Logic"? Or for that matter, even deterministic processors?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    7. Re:open it! by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      ... want to make a guess at how many people understand "Fuzzy Logic"? Or for that matter, even deterministic processors?

      what for?
      if people want to stay ignorant about who and what sees, recognizes, and monitors them . let them.
      my point is, if people don't want to stay ignorant, and want to guard against that , they should have access to the knowledge.

      even if less than 1% understand how it is done in detail, that is still millions, and they can distill that knowledge to digestible forms for benefit of others,
      fact that only a few medical researchers understand everything about a certain virus, does not mean others do not want to be safe from deceases caused by that virus, and not want to act under the guidance of those who understand.

    8. Re:open it! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The original point was that Open Source alone solves it all.

      I'm saying that the inclusion of fuzzy logic in the code, as a rule, changes the deterministic easy-to-understand-by-anybody-able-to-read-an-if-then-else-statement to esoteric-knowledge-that-is-hard-to-explain.

      That is why we package virus cures under anti-microbial medicines and vaccines that are easy for a 2nd year medical student to prescribe and use on their patients.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    9. Re:open it! by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      "The original point was that Open Source alone solves it all."
      where did it say that?!
      it is clear you are confused as to what i said, and arguing with strawmen.

    10. Re:open it! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      "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."

      If you didn't mean that open source can guard against all abuse, then what did you mean?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  4. How about regulation of all biometrics - period by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:How about regulation of all biometrics - period by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the data need to be stored in order to match your identity?

      It shouldn't be wildly distributed. But if you want your biometrics to unlock your phone or laptop or open a door for you, then it needs to be stored.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:How about regulation of all biometrics - period by E-Rock · · Score: 2

      If it's just being used to match, you could store a hash rather than the source data. If the hash of the credentials you supply match, you're in, but they can't lose the data because they don't have it. Same issues with storing passwords this way, but a hell of a lot better than storing the source data.

    3. Re:How about regulation of all biometrics - period by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      A hash is enough, as long as the person who is being identified matches the hash.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  5. No troops quartered in phones, no spying by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    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! --
    1. Re:No troops quartered in phones, no spying by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      What works a lot better than any of that crap is a collection of independently flashing, pulsing, and strobing high-brightness IR LEDs... because all of these cameras are designed to work in the dark, and therefore have no IR filter. Altering your gait doesn't affect your biometrics as much as you think it does; you've still got the same skeleton, after all.

      All of the various means currently used to avoid detection will eventually be worked around, like painting rectangles on your face or wearing special clothing. We can't win an arms race with the law. The only way to solve this problem is to take back government, hee hee ha ha.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:No troops quartered in phones, no spying by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      To you, the Ministry of Silly Walks isn't a useful thing, but it really does work.

      Oh, and ditch/replace your cell phone, the metadata correlation allows us to target the tracking.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:No troops quartered in phones, no spying by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The law has laws to follow

      ...which they frequently ignore.

      Criminals do whatever they want and will always improvise quicker, as they don't have rules and regulations to follow. They cracked iPhone X's face unlock the first day it was released.

      ...then the tech is sold to the police so they can use it against everyone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Anyone can do face surveillance by rapjr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:It's evil. Cameras in your face everywhere you by Luthair · · Score: 1

    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.

  8. Just what we need. More freaking rules. by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    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

  9. Re:It's evil. Cameras in your face everywhere you by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    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.
  10. In other news: by forkfail · · Score: 1

    Microsoft can't seem to get their own facial recognition software working very well.

    --
    Check your premises.
  11. Step 2 by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    Outlaw all face coverings....

    Cold out? TOO BAD!

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  12. Privacy by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"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.

  13. I'm sure this will work out exactly as intended. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    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...