Microsoft Won't Sell Police Its Facial-Recognition Technology (washingtonpost.com) 48
Microsoft joined the list of tech giants who've decided to limit the use of its facial-recognition systems, announcing that it will not sell the controversial technology to police departments until there is a federal law regulating the technology. From a report: The move, announced by Microsoft president Brad Smith at a Post Live event Thursday morning, follows similar decisions by Amazon and IBM, and comes as protesters across the nation press for an end to police brutality and racial profiling. Smith said that Microsoft has not sold its facial-recognition technology to law enforcement. "We will not sell facial-recognition technology to police departments in the United States until we have a national law in place, grounded in human rights that will govern this technology," Smith said. The company also plans to put in place "review factors" that Smith said would "go even beyond what we already have" to determine the use of the technology beyond law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So...exactly WHO are they selling this facial recognition to if not law enforcement?
And I'm a bit torn on this one..I mean, I don't like the idea of facial recognition at all, due to the massive misuse that could come from it...BUT, does anyone have problems with cops arresting those folks that looted and burned buildings?
IN this case, if they had it as a tool, I can't see any harm in trying to identify folks that were rioting instead of peaceful protesting and actually com
Re: (Score:1)
Or, ya'know, maybe the people who show up in the false positives?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The problem is that nobody with power really cares about the rioters and looters - the peaceful protestors are the real threat.
You think the militant thugs (aka police) who are intentionally killing and maiming the peaceful protestors calling for them to be held accountable for their crimes are going to only use facial recognition to target the rioters and looters? You think the politicians who have intentionally created an unaccountable paramilitary police force under the guise of a farcical "war on drugs
Re: at least not publicly maybe license it under b (Score:2)
The problem is that nobody with power really cares about the rioters and looters - the peaceful protestors are the real threat.
That's idiotic. Everyone "with power" has been supportive of peaceful protests from the start. As opposed to the COVID-19 protestors who were crticized by pretty much every Democrat with power despite being entirely peaceful.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes - so the cops have been firing "supportive" less-lethal weapons into crowds of protestors?
There's what politicians say, and there's what they do. They almost always say whatever they think will be most popular, or cause the least backlash. If you want to know their actual opinion you have to look at what they do.
Re: at least not publicly maybe license it under (Score:2)
Ah yes - so the cops have been firing "supportive" less-lethal weapons into crowds of protestors?
You have the right to protest peacefully; you do not have the right to break windows, burn cars and dumpsters, and create obstacles to the effective enforcement of law and order. The government also has the right to place reasonable restrictions on when and where you can protests. All of this has been repeatedly addressed in the courts, and any sensible person should be able to understand and support it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not discussing the rioters - I'm discussing the peaceful protestors who have repeatedly been attacked.
Re: at least not publicly maybe license it under (Score:2)
I know what you're discussing and I addressed it. Read my comment again a few times, then let me know if you're still confused.
Re: (Score:2)
So...exactly WHO are they selling this facial recognition to if not law enforcement?
Who said they are selling it to anyone? The reason they have this technology is because they actively use it in Windows.
Now I'm sure they do sell it, but the reasons for doing so are often quite benign. .
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter who US companies are willing to do business with. China, Russia, and Israel have the brainpower and educational infrastructure to develop and sell these tools. And more important, all three countries (for different reasons perhaps) promote the sense of collective identity instead of maximizing individual benefits.
You Libertarians are your own worst enemies in the long run. Where would you rather live: in a "socialist" state like Sweden, or a failed state like Somalia?
Who are their customers then? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Who are their customers then? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way it usually works is you sell the technology to a vertical market vendor, who integrates it into products that *they* sell to the government.
That's how the government gets around statutory privacy restrictions against transferring data from one government agency to another (typically law enforcement). The laws allow the government to pay contractors to do things it is not allowed to.
Alrighty then (Score:2)
Then someone else will, and they'll make a fortune doing so. It's not like MS, Amazon, Google, or any other "name brand" company has a monopoly on this technology. It's just bad for their public image, since they want to superficially appear as PC as possible. So some defense / public service company will provide it, just like other things such as handcuffs, straight jackets, tear gas canisters, and all these other products which are produced by companies most of us have never heard of.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good for their public image. You may find this hard to believe, but the majority of Americans, heck, the majority of the world right now are pretty fucking pissed off at authoritarian policing.
Police are our employees. They are public servants, not public masters, and must bend to the will of the public. If the public says "jump" the only acceptable answer from the police is "How high?" Police will do as the public says, or face the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
A week ago everyone was accusing IBM of virtue signalling and calling it an empty gesture since their facial recognition business wasn't doing well anyway.
Now as more and more companies join them it looks like they got the ball rolling on an important move.
Re:Alrighty then (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to announce that I'm not going to set any homeless people on fire. I actually haven't ever done so in the past or nor have I ever had any intention of doing so at any point in the future, but I just wanted to announce that I'm not going to set any homeless people on fire. Now if you'd all just recognize my completely shallow act as an important move that got the ball rolling that'd be really swell.
None of what I've done in any way actually helps any homeless people, but don't pay attention to that clever bit of slight of hand and just go on thinking that I've actually done something to make the world a better place by announcing that I'm not going to set any homeless people (or is the politically correct term "people of differently situated housing status" now? I forget.) on fire. So yeah, it's still just virtue signaling.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, it's just cheap publicity and empty virtue signaling. Almost all of the stories about police forces using face recognition mention Clearview AI. I don't know if Microsoft has come up once in any of those stories. It doesn't change much if Microsoft never sold any facial recognition technology to the police to begin with (which the summary leads me to believe unless Microsoft lied), but they get a nice little PR bump from anyone who agrees with that action while they don't lose any business as a result. I'd like to announce that I'm not going to set any homeless people on fire. I actually haven't ever done so in the past or nor have I ever had any intention of doing so at any point in the future, but I just wanted to announce that I'm not going to set any homeless people on fire. Now if you'd all just recognize my completely shallow act as an important move that got the ball rolling that'd be really swell. None of what I've done in any way actually helps any homeless people, but don't pay attention to that clever bit of slight of hand and just go on thinking that I've actually done something to make the world a better place by announcing that I'm not going to set any homeless people (or is the politically correct term "people of differently situated housing status" now? I forget.) on fire. So yeah, it's still just virtue signaling.
It's not just cheap publicity, it is an attempt to capture the market through regulatory control. If Microsoft manages to get a national policy then the major companies will be pushing to make sure only their products can meet the requirements and any smaller companies will be pushed out regardless of any quality or genuine security details.
A majority for (Score:1)
the majority of Americans, heck, the majority of the world right now are pretty fucking pissed off at authoritarian policing.
We sure are, which is why I;'d way rather have more police behind cameras sending out limited police response to issues, than to have them all out just roaming the streets...
Facial recognition tech also plays a big part in helping police understand better who they are dealing with before an encounter, judging based on record rather than on perceptions that might be based on race.
In fa
Re: (Score:2)
Police have reduced violence. It's pretty damn low, in fact, violent crime is at an all time low. And they did that all without facial recognition.
Here's a proposal. Cut the police budget in half. See if crime goes up. If not, fucking cut the budget in half again. Keep doing that until it makes a difference, then raise the budget slightly until crime is at the same level. Heck, if you put what you cut into social programs, I bet crime would go down with fewer police.
Many large metropolitan areas spend more
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with facial recognition is that it is unconstitutional. It is a police search without a warrant, and an invasion of privacy.
No it just doesn't work for shit, I heard how it was going to fuel a new anti terror tech revolution after 911, so said my boss. Twenty years later and its still a steaming pile of false positives, glad I didn't buy any stock in it.
Re: (Score:2)
The most likely outcome of all this posturing from the big names over not selling facial recognition tech to the police is that there will be some unknown name that will license that tech from the big names and parse it out to the police. I'm sure somebody in this companies is helping plot that course right now so the money can continue flowing in the correct direction, just with an extra hop along the distribution network.
Re: (Score:2)
Then someone else will
They are rapidly running out of those "someone else".
It's not like MS, Amazon, Google, or any other "name brand" company has a monopoly on this technology.
I'll put good money behind the fact that these "name brand" majors have far more knowledge, history, far more mature products, and far more capabilities than most other companies especially considering their technology is trained on millions of their customers.
Bring back the car analogy on Slashdot:
Just because GM doesn't have a monopoly on cars doesn't mean you'd be happy driving a Lada.
Typical Virtue Signaling... (Score:2)
Creates a privacy invasion tool... won't "sell" it to police.
Microsoft, if you actually cared you would instead... sell this to police and then you would also create a police brutality tracker that people can use on their phone that would allow them all to identify an officer immediately during a stop and know exactly what each officer is up to whilst about their "public duties". It would also serve as quick proof that people whom claim to be a police officer are valid.
Until then... fuck off Microsoft, you
Re: (Score:1)
You sure think about dicks a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgoing revenue, especially large those from large government contracts is not virtue signalling.
Also what makes you say they created a privacy invasion tool? Last I saw the fundamental reason for MS's facial recognition was to develop a system to keep others out of your computer.
Re: (Score:2)
"Also what makes you say they created a privacy invasion tool? Last I saw the fundamental reason for MS's facial recognition was to develop a system to keep others out of your computer."
Because a username/password can be kept a secret much easier by comparison, but your face cannot. I did not think this was hard for people to grasp... ha ha... who am I kidding, you are a poster child for why you lose your liberty... you won't even know they are missing after they are long gone. Carry on!
MS created Facial
Oh please (Score:2)
There's no way to prevent police departments getting and using it, even if it's done through a third- or fourth- or fifth-party. There are a multitude of ways by where the police could get their hands on this and you know they want it. One way or another, if it exists then the police are going use it.
Oh c'mon (Score:2)
Oh c'mon, do you really think the police would misuse a tool like this? I mean, look at how responsible they've been with all the other stuff they use, right?
simple (Score:2)
Then police departments should immediately cease any investigations on behalf of Microsoft.
Simple.
If you're concerned about the sensitivity and possibility of misuse such that you prohibit any sales to anyone until there's controlling legislating in place, that's one thing.
If you have a technology that rando company can buy, but you're not allowing police to buy it out of some misguided attempt to display your righteousness, then fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
Listed concern is bologna (Score:5, Interesting)
Their real world concern does not have anything to do with the protests. That is legal and protected by the first amendment. They know it and are not concerned about that. They are certainly concerned about their own technology being used to identify their own employees or contractors who participated in the riots. The overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of rioting, looting and arson and that will reflect very bad on Microsoft as a corporation.
However their real concern is the risk that any of those people also happen to be members of Antifa. The recent classification of Antifa as a terrorist organization places Microsoft at serious risk as a corporation with regards to an entire range of federal laws.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting your news, CNN or MSNBC? There were never millions of protesters. There were protests during daylight hours in limited quantities. Protests do not loot, damage, and burn 700 - 1000 homes and buildings and that was just the Twin Cities MN. Protests do not result in thousands of assaults with weapons or bricks thrown at cars. Protests do not result in at least 15 additional murders, at least 10 of which were black. Protests do not result in hundreds of cars being torched per metro.
In the
Only restricted to police departments in the US (Score:1)
From the article: “We will not sell facial-recognition technology to police departments in the United States until we have a national law in place, grounded in human rights, that will govern this technology".
If any other police departments (for example, in Russia or China) want to buy it, that's OK with Microsoft, because police abuse only exists in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Local police have access via DHS (Score:2)
This is complete face-washing. Any child agency of DHS can and will provide this technology to whoever asks for it. Pima cty. sheriff already uses it complements of DHS/CPB. It's also all over Maricopa/downtown PHX and parts of Casa Grande in Pinal. It's already in use at the border by CPB at checkpoints within 30 miles of the border in AZ. This is hot stuff folks, don't let this crap fool you.
Slight typo (Score:2)
We will not [ADMIT TO] sellI[ING] facial-recognition technology to police departments in the United States until we have a national law in place, grounded in human rights that will govern this technology," Smith said.
Slight typo, fixed it though to better reflect the world we actually live in as opposed to the fantasy they want you to believe...