Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM Government Privacy United States

IBM Calls For Regulation To Avoid Facial Recognition Bans (axios.com) 60

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
IBM, one of several big tech companies selling facial recognition programs, is calling on Congress to regulate the technology -- but not too much. From a report: China has built a repressive surveillance apparatus with facial recognition; now, some U.S. cities are rolling it out for law enforcement. But tech companies worry that opponents will react to these developments by kiboshing the technology completely. IBM's proposal joins calls for federal facial recognition regulations from Microsoft, Amazon and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Big Tech is threatened by a yearlong groundswell of bans and proposed restrictions on facial recognition bubbling up in cities like San Francisco and states like Massachusetts. The companies say these moves would cut off beneficial uses of the technology, like speeding up airport security or finding missing children.

In a white paper, IBM is calling for what it calls "precision regulation." That means limiting potentially harmful uses rather than forbidding use of the technology entirely. IBM proposes treating various kinds of facial recognition differently. Face detection software, which simply counts the number of faces in the scene, is less prone to abuse than face matching, which can pick specific people out of a crowd. "There will always be usecases that will be off limits," IBM Chief Privacy Officer Christina Montgomery tells Axios. "That includes mass surveillance and racial profiling."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Calls For Regulation To Avoid Facial Recognition Bans More

IBM Calls For Regulation To Avoid Facial Recognition Bans

Comments Filter:

  • ...can go gag on a jumping cholla cactus.

    • The companies say these moves would cut off beneficial uses of the technology, like speeding up airport security....

      While waiting in line for TSA is a PITA....its just an inconvenience, and you just make sure you get to the airport a bit earlier ahead of your flight than you used to have to.

      I'd still much rather have that, than yet another way of companies/govt gathering biometric info, storing it in a database and using it to track me as I go about my normal, law abiding life.

      I'd rather wait in line tha

      • Why not? You just accepted the security theater of waiting in line for the TSA and the PITA that it is.

        You gave up that, you will give up this. Not even sure why you think you have a choice here... you are going to voluntold what you are going to be doing.

        What's the over/under bet?

      • The companies say these moves would cut off beneficial uses of the technology, like speeding up airport security....

        While waiting in line for TSA is a PITA....its just an inconvenience, and you just make sure you get to the airport a bit earlier ahead of your flight than you used to have to.
        d still much rather have that, than yet another way of companies/govt gathering biometric info, storing it in a database and using it to track me as I go about my normal, law abiding life.

        False dichotomy. The TSA is worthless. They have caught 0 terrorists, and every time they are tested they fail at finding bombs, guns, knives, you name it. What we needed were locking cabin doors and air marshals on every flight, and now we have them. All that other stuff is just there to dupe the rubes, and it's working very well — as your comment demonstrates.

        • False dichotomy. The TSA is worthless. They have caught 0 terrorists, and every time they are tested they fail at finding bombs, guns, knives, you name it. What we needed were locking cabin doors and air marshals on every flight, and now we have them. All that other stuff is just there to dupe the rubes, and it's working very well â" as your comment demonstrates.

          Not saying I like the TSA or what they do....but we're stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

          If you know of a way to change that, pleas

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by thomn8r ( 635504 )

          False dichotomy. The TSA is worthless. They have caught 0 terrorists, and every time they are tested they fail at finding bombs, guns, knives, you name it. What we needed were locking cabin doors and air marshals on every flight, and now we have them.

          The TSA is a busywork jobs program; no more, no less.

  • They know where the money is, and they are known to not care what evil endeavor they support.

    • The STASI had miles of dossiers on it's own citizens. China has the same. This isn't a fascist trait. Please lern som history.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        The "STASI" lacked the speed of early fast computers.
        Too many people made reports and every file had to be kept secret.
        The STASI feared any vast new computer dataset could walk out of East Germany...
        Some database work was done, mostly as a fast network to access East German spy networks in West Germany during a time of war.
        The CIA got an offical copy and found East German spies listed on a computer file.
        The miles of dossiers did have some practical security.
        No one person could get approval for ph

        • The "STASI" lacked the speed of early fast computers.

          How does how they did it matter in any way ?? Is a painless genocide better than via machete ???

          Too many people made reports and every file had to be kept secret.

          Thanos, is that you ?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AHuxley ( 892839 )
            Re 'How does how they did it matter in any way ?"
            Compare that with the skill sets of the GCHQ and SAS in Ireland and MI6 tracking Irish support in the USA...
            The NSA, CIA and their data collection spending.
            Now what the GCHQ, NSA and CIA could do will be done at a police level in the USA...
            Very different to the methods of the "STASI" who had to search paper files.. and needed lot of trusted staff.
            • I'm not advocating for surveilance. But you seem to be looking closely at the technical side of things, instead of the political/goals side of things -- this is what i meant. My impression is that of "missing the point by 20 kilometers". The political police is my country didn't use computers, it didn't matter one bit trust me. They had informants in every stair (apartment buildings entrances). You should be focusing on killing it via politics not via tech.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AHuxley ( 892839 )
                Re 'They had informants in every stair"
                The US police forces just share a private company CCTV camera in the street and at some local cafe/bar/club/place of work. They get every face over days, months, years.
                Drive, sail, fly, use a train/bus to enter a US city? Thats lots of CCTV to pass. A random police chat down..
                Rent a car? Stay at a hotel? City police have a great connections with all such staff..
                No need for the staff to be police, the staff like to call the police...
                No paying for "informants i

      • The STASI had miles of dossiers on it's own citizens. China has the same. This isn't a fascist trait. Please lern som history.

        Some history like IBM built the machines to manage the concentration camps, and the payments for the maintenance service contract went straight to their HQ in Armonk, NY?

        • Ok (Score:1)

          by gDLL ( 1413289 )
          Ok, now do the same for all the major companies that did the same for all Communist regimes. I'm waiting....

          You can start with the guys that gave nuke secrets to Stalin....

          • We're talking about IBM right now, but your attempt to derail the conversation with whataboutism has been noted.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by gDLL ( 1413289 )
              Noted where, offizier ?

              No, you were talking about IBM AND Fascism, and you want to keep doing that no matter what even though there is nothing to do with Fascism here as I have explained.

          • You can start with the guys that gave nuke secrets to Stalin....

            ...and then you can proceed with the guys that sold weapons grade uranium to Rossatom. With the same end results.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        We are talking about IBM. Please go fuck yourself.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by gDLL ( 1413289 )
          You are also talking about fascism aparently, and I was pointing out this is not fascism-related. Thanks for the very convincing ad hominem, I will F*k your mother instead.

    • They know where the money is, and they are known to not care what evil endeavor they support.

      Brought to you by the company that managed the database of concentration detainees for the NAZIS.

  • IBM ... helping Fascist pigs since 1935. They sold the Nazis the calculating equipment used to run the Holocaust. F'em.
    • Because helping people do math makes you responsible when those people use the math to kill people...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by geekoid ( 135745 )

        If they know what it's going to be used form then.. Yes.
        To the best of my knowledge. IBM didn't know.

      • Because helping people do math makes you responsible when those people use the math to kill people...

        So says the SJW. Don't give them a damn thing, ever. Unless it's a six foot drop with a four foot rope.

    • Do you think the truck manufacterer has some responsibility for the Paris terrorist attack where a truck was used to drive into a mass of people?
      • Correction: that was the Nice truck attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
        • That's horrible. There's nothing "Nice" about driving a truck into a crowd of people. Fie upon you!

      • Do you think the truck manufacterer has some responsibility for the Paris terrorist attack where a truck was used to drive into a mass of people?

        Absolutely NOT!!

        It is just a tool, that can be misused by deranged people.

        Same argument for guns....or knives, or baseball bats, or hammers (which are used to kill FAR more people annually than AR-15's).

        Tools are tools.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      What the world new of the holocaust was almost non existent until the allies got to the camps.
      There where vague rumors, but that was it, No one thought they were killing people like that.
      NAZI Germany did not go to IBM and say "we need a machines that can count the number of people we are gassing and starving to death.'

  • Makes people feel it's okay, when nothing has actually changed.
    The real difference is an opportunity to buy off politicians and bureaucrats and block your competition through regulation.

  • Why (Score:1)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 )
    do so many feel the need to protect the privacy of criminals and illegal migrants?
    Let the gov catch criminals and find the illegal migrants.
    Less crime. Less fake/created ID been used again and again for crime. Detect the fraud, fake data, less shared data.
    One person can't use a lot of different ID all over the USA. Create fake ID that has no origin in any other US database.
    Federal facial recognition will bring together banking, permits, housing, rent, passports, education, mil service, health care

    • Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @10:25AM (#59387000) Homepage Journal

      Any technology use to protect the citizens of a country, will eventually be turned on the citizens of that country.

      Criminals have rights until proven guilty.

      In order for something like this to work, it needs to violate the privacy of ALL citizens to find who they are looking for.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Re "Criminals have rights until proven guilty."
        Criminals would already be under investigation again... as they keep trying to use fake, shared, stolen ID...
        The act of using fake ID, stolen ID, moving money, accepting gov support.. is the crime.

        Re 'violate the privacy of ALL citizens" not if the citizen was told that to get the new service, support, cash, food, product, bank account would allow for sharing of all info with the federal gov....

        What the federal gov grants by spending tax money, it can re

        • Re 'violate the privacy of ALL citizens" not if the citizen was told that to get the new service, support, cash, food, product, bank account would allow for sharing of all info with the federal gov....

          So... you think if the government holds services hostage in exchange for citizens' agreement to give up their privacy, that somehow makes it better??

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AHuxley ( 892839 )
            Re "exchange for citizens' agreement to give up their privacy, that somehow makes it better??"
            The question was that somehow exisiting legal "privacy" would save new datasets from new gov collection.
            Past state/federal privacy laws would still hold on old accounts, services, gov support for citizens.
            Every new account, request would be made under new laws...
            So past "privacy" cannot be expected to hold once a citizen grants the gov, mil "sharing" access as part of any "free" support/housing/banking/medical
      • The law is rarely caught up to technology, and rarely ever will be. The only realistic solution is a complete ban on the use of facial recognition technology by the government and government associated entities is the only realistic way to prevent it from being used against citizens. It *WILL* be weaponized against the citizens if implemented in any form. This has been proven time and time again, and there's already a chinese-like "social score" implemented in the tech sector as-is.

      • In order for something like this to work, it needs to violate the privacy of ALL citizens to find who they are looking for.

        Tell that to the citizens of Cambodia. I'm sure Pol Pot will disagree.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Chromal ( 56550 )
      Reducing civil liberties broadly in a deplorable authoritarian effort to resolve hypothetical and non-problems in the name of ideology? Turning that into an exploitative and predatory and inequitable for-profit industry? What could possibly go wrong? The only way not to slide down the slippery slope and off the precipice to apocalyptic dystopia is to stay off the goddamned slippery slope and erect barriers to keep it that way. Ban all facial recognition undertaken without written consent of all parties bein
  • I am fucking sick and tired of the children being used as excuses to abuse the adults.
    • Especially when the adults in power are nonces like Prince Andrew that go around abusing children.

      If only we'd have listened to Swift's modest proposal. Then we wouldn't have this problem at all.

    • I am fucking sick and tired of the children being used as excuses to abuse the adults.

      You mean children like Greta Thunberg?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gDLL ( 1413289 )
        He probably meant something entirely different, but yes also a good example too!
        Remember, don't have kids or else they will pollute the planet, how dare you !

  • That's why it's presented in legalese, and not drawn with a crayon and written in third grade English. You know, like IBM's evasions of responsibility for building and servicing the concentration camp management machines.

  • Condescension, much? (Score:3)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @10:41AM (#59387060)

    "There will always be usecases that will be off limits," IBM Chief Privacy Officer Christina Montgomery tells Axios. "That includes mass surveillance and racial profiling."

    Proclaiming "usecases" as "off limits" is meaningless because enforcement is impossible. Thanks to Big Tech privacy and autonomy are already dead and buried, and Christina Montgomery certainly knows this. She also knows that Big Tech has demonstrated a willingness, nay an eagerness, to trample human rights by assisting repressive agencies and regimes in the name of profit. Her utterance is merely the 'spoonful of Aspartame' that makes the unthinking less likely to notice the poison they're being forced to swallow. Fuck Montgomery, fuck IBM, and fuck Big Tech.

    • "There will always be usecases that will be off limits," IBM Chief Privacy Officer Christina Montgomery tells Axios. "That includes mass surveillance and racial profiling."

      Proclaiming "usecases" as "off limits" is meaningless because enforcement is impossible.

      Nonsense. Someone always knows what's going on, and will spill the beans. Keeping big secrets is extremely hard. Not even the NSA can do it, much less tech companies whose employees have a habit of writing open letters to complain about anything they don't like.

  • coming from the corporation that automated the tallying and tracking of Jews for the holocaust.

  • to pre-emp state regulations, especially California's regulations (and especially before California's more pro-consumer laws and rules become a national standard).

  • And people thought Watson was jsut for playing game shows and chess.

  • Think about all the children it will help, SAVE THE CHILDREN!
    Everyone else can go fuck themselves.

    The day they can promise that this sort of data will not be abused (which is never, humans being humans) is the day I might be happy about it.
    Wasn't there some sort of infrared based headgear designed to mess with this technology? Hmmm, might want to see if I can start a kickstarter campaign and mass produce them real cheap (in China of course) and sell them on every corner. Their facial recognition crap
  • It would be easier to regulate if we just called all of this new information "Freedom Crumbs".

    Might as well let the government choose who gets to sweep up all of the freedom crumbs and profit from the data. Facial recognition, LPR's, privacy snooping, DNA swabs from publically discarded items (tbd), etc are all just money grabs from the general population going about their normal daily routines.

    It was so much less obtrusive when most of our days faded with the sunset. Now every day has the potential o

  • We need to ban IBM from banning legislation banning the use of facial recognition software.

  • Facial recognition software should be regulated on the government level. Especially when Europe is adopting General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). term paper writing service [thetermpapers.net]

Slashdot Top Deals

A person with one watch knows what time it is; a person with two watches is never sure. Proverb

Close