Microsoft Calls on Congress To Regulate Face Recognition (axios.com) 87
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.
Should require a warrant (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re:Should require a warrant (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re:Should require a warrant (Score:4, Funny)
Facial optical character recognition? So, what, it turns your expression into emoji?
That actually sounds pretty cool.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:1)
Heck, that's even an Azure service these days:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-services/emotion/ [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution was created before the invention of the Photograph Camera.
I am sure biometrics tracking wasn't considered an issue at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't even want to guess at how many mug shots law enforcement has.
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 cr
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 p
Re: (Score:2)
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 sta
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have no worthwhile software (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is crying for regulation because they are so far behind.
Re: (Score:2)
That is normally how it goes.
Those who can do, do.
Those who can't, regulate.
Re: (Score:2)
open it! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 2) Take a photo
Step 3) Go to https://cmusatyalab.github.io/... [github.io] and install the software
Step 4) Profit
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2, 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
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
... 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
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How about regulation of all biometrics - period (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
A hash is enough, as long as the person who is being identified matches the hash.
No troops quartered in phones, no spying (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).
Re: (Score:3)
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 cl
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Anyone can do face surveillance (Score:4, Interesting)
Just what we need. More freaking rules. (Score:1)
In other news: (Score:2)
Microsoft can't seem to get their own facial recognition software working very well.
Step 2 (Score:2)
Outlaw all face coverings....
Cold out? TOO BAD!
Privacy (Score:2)
>"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 sa
I'm sure this will work out exactly as intended. (Score:2)
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.