Microsoft Pitched Its Facial Recognition Tech To the DEA, New Emails Show

Microsoft tried to sell its facial recognition technology to the Drug Enforcement Administration as far back as 2017, according to newly released emails. From a report: The American Civil Liberties Union obtained the emails through a public records lawsuit it filed in October, challenging the secrecy surrounding the DEA's facial recognition program. The ACLU shared the emails with TechCrunch. The emails, dated between September 2017 and December 2018, show that Microsoft privately hosted DEA agents at its Reston, Va. office to demonstrate its facial recognition system, and that the DEA later piloted the technology. It was during this time Microsoft's president Brad Smith was publicly calling for government regulations covering the use of facial recognition.

But the emails also show that the DEA expressed concern with purchasing the technology, fearing criticism from the FBI's use of facial recognition at the time that caught the attention of government watchdogs. Critics have long said this face-matching technology violates Americans' right to privacy, and that the technology disproportionately shows bias against people of color. But despite the rise of facial recognition by police and in public spaces, Congress has struggled to keep pace and introduce legislation that would oversee the as-of-yet unregulated space.

Disband the DEA

[jacks smirking reven]

I am no longer a "small government" type of thinker but goddamn, has there been a government agency who has caused so much damage for so little gains than the DEA? They've taken billions and for almost no gains. Cartels still exist and are more powerful than ever, drugs are still as widely available as they were decades ago, if not more so and they pretty much ignored the opiate crisis.

Decriminalize all drugs, disband the whole thing and fire all those agents who in my opinion are the most corrupt of the bunch. If there is something they are doing that still needs to be done it can easily be handled by the FBI or one of the other 3 letters.

Re:Disband the DEA

[alvinrod]

Organizations like the DEA are in part responsible for the formation of large cartels. When you have something as organized and well-funded as the DEA then the only type of criminal enterprise that could compete with it is exactly something like a cartel. It's similar to how prohibition laws and government enforcement gave rise to organized crime and the large criminal enterprises that existed during that period in American history. All the small outfits get taken out by the DEA which leaves the market not only open, but far more profitable.

The government could essentially cripple the cartels overnight if it decriminalized drug possession and just handled purchasing the various drugs that people consume from licensed growers or producers. Sure some of them would find other criminal niches (e.g. human trafficking) but the primary source of their income would be removed overnight.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

They've taken billions and for almost no gains.

Wait, what? You're looking at this from entirely the wrong angle. They've taken billions. They and their associates are now very rich and powerful. I would call that a pretty big gain.

Re:Disband the DEA

[plague911]

The DEA can only do so much. There IS good reason for fight crack, opioids, and various other HARD drugs. Unfortunately due to outside AND internal politics they seem to fight weed etc just as hard, if not harder, than things which are actually killing people. I'm sorry Weed, Mushrooms, LSD, Coke, and Ecstasy are NOT in the same category as Heroin, PCP, Crack, Methamphetamine etc. Pretending they are results in a wildly dangerous misappropriation of resources and the creation of cartels.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

I disagree there even. It sounds like a nice agreeable compromise but even the so called "hard drugs" and really no worse than things as sinister and powerful as oxycontin and fentanyl which are "legal". A heroin or meth addict is an issue for public health if they are not committing acts of violence, although those things have a tendency to go hand in hand, a large part of which is due to their illegal nature. . Showing up with guns and putting those people in jail only perpetuates the problem and that

Re:

[plague911]

Oxycontin and fentanyl are hard drugs. I am not sure why you would think they were not included in that label. The DEA as currently architected does not deal with street level usage (could be wrong here.) And bringing guns to violence to bare against illegal traffickers of these substances is more than justified. As an aside, just using a proxy for actual impact opioids kill around 40,000 while alcohol kills 80,000. I don't see why you could reasonably say that alcohol is "by far" more damaging. We coul

Re:

[rtb61]

Alcohol, is an interesting one. Do you know the profits from the Alcohol industry and less than the cost of the harm caused by alchohol consumption. People are not just taking drugs, they are self medicating due to the extreme psychological harm caused by psychopathic capitalism (which puts capital ahead of people's lives, it will spend one hundred thousand dollars to kill someone to protect one dollar).

The soundest most reasonable choice in light of reality, us and our planet. Make drugs with birth control

Re:

[Creepy]

The problem is the DEA has the final say and works against the medical community. Cannabis provides us with Marinol, which is Schedule 3 proving there is a medical use for it. From the DEA's own web site: "Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." They literally are violating their own rules. Since Schedule 2 have a high potential for abuse but Cannabis doesn't bind to dopamine receptors. Put it on schedule 3 where

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[kenh]

You know, the same thing could be said about the war on poverty - we've flushed trillions in federal programs and we haven't reduced the percentage of poor in this country. Since you are a results-oriented kind of guy, I'm certain you'll soon demand we shut down the war on poverty as an abject failure.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

It certainly "could" be said that it's an "abject failure" and makes for a nice succinct and hyperbolic republican talking point, but that would not be as they say "accurate" or "factual" which also makes it a nice republican talking point, not that I am suggesting that is where you are coming from.

If you take the stance of "poverty still exists, so the war on poverty failed" then sure, it's a "failure". I would take the stance that it has been somewhat effective but not very efficient and in need of some

Why is this news?

[FuegoFuerte]

"Company tries to sell technology it spent money to develop, to a customer with money."

*Yawn*

In other news, a large government likes to have technology that gives it more power, and seeks to buy it from a company developing technology with such potential.

*Yawn*

I saw the racks of servers running Carnivore right next to the racks of [very large email provider] years before all the Snowden stuff leaked. It's no secret governments like information and knowledge, and sometimes companies have to cater to those g

so what...

[j3x0n]

What is the point of this article? Why wouldn't Microsoft pitch its facial recognition to the government?

Re:

[FuegoFuerte]

I think we're supposed to be offended by capitalism at work. Money is supposed to rain from helicopters on people who didn't work for it, and any suggestion to the contrary is newsworthy.

Re:

[omnichad]

It's a counterpoint to many companies announcing in the last week that they are discontinuing facial recognition development at least temporarily. Many of them tried to take credit as being proactive, but this is more proof that they were actively working with governments right up until the spotlight was on them.

Re:

[plague911]

Indeed, To quote the above poster "Big multinational pays lip-service to latest SJW's latest fad" *Yawn*

Re:

[JeffOwl]

The problem is that they are not being successful. The issues brought up in the article are still present and they have not reliably worked around them. So, it is easier to claim "we're backing off the technology" rather than admit "we don't know how to make it work." I'll bet they are still working the tech in any case.

Why not?

[fustakrakich]

The Wright brothers pitched their airplane to the military. A juicy contract is a juicy contract.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[kenh]

Right, the nefarious, secret purpose behind facial recognition is to ensnare otherwise law-abiding minorities and the 'economically disadvantaged' into legal trouble. Nice perpetuation of a racial stereotype as a basis for your virtue signaling.

Why pay for a facial recognition tech

[Unpopular Opinions]

When you can get that for free on Facebook? As Steve Jobs once said, âyou are using it wrongâ(TM).

Included in law enforcement products years ago

[laughingskeptic]

This is not new. I did a bake-off over a decade ago for a law enforcement product and Microsoft's face recognition tech was the winner at that time. Their API worked quite well and supported multiple orientations of faces. I'm sure it has improved since.

People do not seem to realize that Microsoft includes their excellent face recognition technology in base Windows. They did their best to bury their Face Recognition API and the Windows version uses an in-memory database which makes it a little harder

What a nothing story...

[kenh]

Msmash left one word out of the headline that any serious editor would have included "unsuccessfully," as in "Microsoft unsuccessfully tried to pitch its facial recognition software to the DEA" - yawn.