Facial Recognition Has To Be Regulated To Protect the Public, Says AI Report (technologyreview.com) 55
A new report (PDF) from the AINow Institute calls for the U.S. government to take general steps to improve the regulation of facial recognition technology amid much debate over the privacy implications. "The implementation of AI systems is expanding rapidly, without adequate governance, oversight, or accountability regimes," it says. The report suggests, for instance, extending the power of existing government bodies in order to regulate AI issues, including use of facial recognition: "Domains like health, education, criminal justice, and welfare all have their own histories, regulatory frameworks, and hazards." MIT Technology Review reports: It also calls for stronger consumer protections against misleading claims regarding AI; urges companies to waive trade-secret claims when the accountability of AI systems is at stake (when algorithms are being used to make critical decisions, for example); and asks that they govern themselves more responsibly when it comes to the use of AI. And the document suggests that the public should be warned when facial-recognition systems are being used to track them, and that they should have the right to reject the use of such technology.
The report also warns about the use of emotion tracking in face-scanning and voice detection systems. Tracking emotion this way is relatively unproven, yet it is being used in potentially discriminatory ways -- for example, to track the attention of students. "It's time to regulate facial recognition and affect recognition," says Kate Crawford, cofounder of AINow and one of the lead authors of the report. "Claiming to 'see' into people's interior states is neither scientific nor ethical."
The report also warns about the use of emotion tracking in face-scanning and voice detection systems. Tracking emotion this way is relatively unproven, yet it is being used in potentially discriminatory ways -- for example, to track the attention of students. "It's time to regulate facial recognition and affect recognition," says Kate Crawford, cofounder of AINow and one of the lead authors of the report. "Claiming to 'see' into people's interior states is neither scientific nor ethical."
End of story (Score:4, Insightful)
Frog 2 (later): Ok it's pretty hot now, what do we do?
Frog: What we need to do is regulate the water temperature!
Frog: *passes regulation*
Water: *ignores regulation, being water*
Frog 1& 2: *die horribly*
Re: (Score:1)
One important difference is that THIS water can be killed. It will always claim killing it is not the answer, that the frogs should boil and that killing it is illegal... but it CAN be prevented from ever boiling any other frogs again, whenever and wherever it appears.
But the frogs have to be willing to do so, lest they be nothing but legs at the buffet.
Impossible to regulate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Massive fines (for managers and the company) might dissuade large companies, given the high risk. Imagine if, as punishment for one of these FB scandals, Zuckerberg and Sandberg had half their personal fortunes forfeited and FB was fined 100 billion by the government. I mean, it might not stop some small company that doesn't have much to lose, but their abuse seems less scary.
Re:Impossible to regulate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And I imagine that someone developing an AI for the purpose of committing murder would be held accountable.
So, in a parallel fashion, if we make it illegal for us to recognize a face or someone's emotions, then we can make it illegal for an AI to do it.
Whatever I can legally do myself, I should be able to legally use a tool to do. Using tools to make it easier to do things that we already do manually is an important part of the essence of being human.
Re: (Score:2)
So, because you can phone someone up and ask them if they want a new vacuum cleaner, you think auto-diallers should be unregulated?
Because you can travel by foot from A to B, you should be able to use a tool like a helicopter to do so too, without any regulation around that?
Because I can sit on my front
Re: (Score:2)
What is the value of privacy, or is it anonymity? We can regulate anything if it is important enough. Murder can be committed without any tools or special training, but it is "very regulated" and enforced because we value life a lot. How much do we value privacy/anonymity?
Re: (Score:2)
That is an easy question to answer, do people value privacy enough to wear a https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=n... [amazon.com]. So do you value you privacy enough to wear one and promote the wearing of them, perhaps not just because of privacy but also to protect the people's health a reduce the amount of toxic particulate matter and infectious organisms entering their lungs.
There is very little than can be done to stop facial recognition, governments will demand it is government buildings and of course private property,
Re: (Score:2)
Being a lawyer can't be regulated, because there's also no hard purchase component. There's just me giving advice. Hey, I'm a lawyer! Yeah, I'll write you a contract. It might be low quality, but hey, caveat emptor. You can't regulate opinions and ideas, and that contract is just my ideas in writing!
You can regulate AI just like you can regulate legal advice, or financial advice, or banking. An AI tool is a 'thing' just as much as a financial instrument is or a legal contract is, or a medical diagnosis is.
Re: (Score:2)
People said the same thing about computers back in the 70s when modern data protection laws were being devised. Yet somehow were we are in 2018 with strong protections like GDPR that effectively regulate their use.
Compare how people's personal data is handled and abused in the US to the state in the EU. There is no question that these laws are effective.
Blatant Statism (Score:2)
Deity forbid, a private citizen will collect a database of strangers passing by his house, is that it? Horrors, if allowed at all, it must require a government-issued license and assault-type face-recognition must be banned by Federal Law!
Let me guess (Score:2)
Goverment Needs to Regulate Own Recognition (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
- doing anything they want to do,
- to whom ever they want to do it to,
- when ever they want to do it.
Always remember Laws and Regulations are optional for all (bureaucrats and politicians) as long as their protection as privileged elites holds up. After all they are all so smart it is very hard for the struggling voters to see and understand their brilliance. Thus they mu
Well we need this tech IF, (Score:2)
Seems scarier but is it really so reliable... (Score:2)
Gait Recognition
I question if this is as reliable as it seems. Giat would be affected by encumbrance, physical issues (pulled something at the gym), heck even just very different clothing could affect this, or make it hard to measure...
If gait detection becomes pervasive maybe a bunch of people will all get duster coats. :-)
Criminals won't be able to enjoy their wealth (Score:2)
An illegal citizen who expects their fake ID to just keep working for decades?
Open a new bank account and expect your fake ID to be accepted?
Want to move around the nation as a criminal and expect the freedom to do new crime in another city/state?
Not until after we ... (Score:2)
... address climate change, immigration, fossil fuels, government corruption and validated pussy-grabbers.
See you in the funny papers.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The same argument was made about databases. You can collect and organize the same information with a paper filing system. We regulated the use of databases for storing information relating to people anyway, because we could see what powerful tools databases are.
Just like the polygraph (Score:2)
We know that polygraphs don't work, yet they're still being used to gauge honesty. It'd be surprising if AI were held to a higher standard for gauging attention level.