IBM Returns To the Facial Recognition Market 17
During the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, IBM announced that it would no longer offer "general purpose" facial recognition technology due to concerns about racial profiling, mass surveillance, and other human rights violations. Now, according to The Verge and Liberty Investigates, "IBM signed a $69.8 million contract with the British government to develop a national biometrics platform that will offer a facial recognition function to immigration and law enforcement officials." From the report: A contract notice for the Home Office Biometrics Matcher Platform outlines how the project initially involves developing a fingerprint matching capability, while later stages introduce facial recognition for immigration purposes -- described as "an enabler for strategic facial matching for law enforcement." The final stage of the project is described as delivery of a "facial matching for law enforcement use-case." The platform will allow photos of individuals to be matched against images stored on a database -- what is sometimes known as a "one-to-many" matching system. In September 2020, IBM described such "one-to-many" matching systems as "the type of facial recognition technology most likely to be used for mass surveillance, racial profiling, or other violations of human rights."
IBM spokesman Imtiaz Mufti denied that its work on the contract was in conflict with its 2020 commitments. "IBM no longer offers general-purpose facial recognition and, consistent with our 2020 commitment, does not support the use of facial recognition for mass surveillance, racial profiling, or other human rights violations," he said. "The Home Office Biometrics Matcher Platform and associated Services contract is not used in mass surveillance. It supports police and immigration services in identifying suspects against a database of fingerprint and photo data. It is not capable of video ingest, which would typically be needed to support face-in-a-crowd biometric usage."
Human rights campaigners, however, said IBM's work on the project is incompatible with its 2020 commitments. Kojo Kyerewaa of Black Lives Matter UK said: "IBM has shown itself willing to step over the body and memory of George Floyd to chase a Home Office contract. This won't be forgotten." Matt Mahmoudi, PhD, tech researcher at Amnesty International, said: "The research across the globe is clear; there is no application of one-to-many facial recognition that is compatible with human rights law, and companies -- including IBM -- must therefore cease its sale, and honor their earlier statements to sunset these tools, even and especially in the context of law and immigration enforcement where the rights implications are compounding."
IBM spokesman Imtiaz Mufti denied that its work on the contract was in conflict with its 2020 commitments. "IBM no longer offers general-purpose facial recognition and, consistent with our 2020 commitment, does not support the use of facial recognition for mass surveillance, racial profiling, or other human rights violations," he said. "The Home Office Biometrics Matcher Platform and associated Services contract is not used in mass surveillance. It supports police and immigration services in identifying suspects against a database of fingerprint and photo data. It is not capable of video ingest, which would typically be needed to support face-in-a-crowd biometric usage."
Human rights campaigners, however, said IBM's work on the project is incompatible with its 2020 commitments. Kojo Kyerewaa of Black Lives Matter UK said: "IBM has shown itself willing to step over the body and memory of George Floyd to chase a Home Office contract. This won't be forgotten." Matt Mahmoudi, PhD, tech researcher at Amnesty International, said: "The research across the globe is clear; there is no application of one-to-many facial recognition that is compatible with human rights law, and companies -- including IBM -- must therefore cease its sale, and honor their earlier statements to sunset these tools, even and especially in the context of law and immigration enforcement where the rights implications are compounding."
Shareholders want profits (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry, another US corporation will happily sell their domestic experience of face-in-a-crowd detection for use with the database IBM created.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Shareholders want profits
That is why it should be possible to prosecute shareholders for their actions and their actions should be open to the public. Right now, the most powerful forces in our society are not held accountable for anything and can hide behind closed meetings.
Re:Shareholders want profits (Score:4, Informative)
They built the holocaust management machines, the payments for the support contract went direct to Armonk in NY, the president of IBM knew the holocaust was occurring and was reportedly in favor of it... this is on brand for IBM
Watson 2.0, I knew it! (Score:2)
Watson was destined to do great things in this world.
Like solving match puzzles, playing chess and bringing world peace at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
2 out of 3 ain't bad, what's your problem?
IBM will sell drone AI to russia and north korea! (Score:2)
IBM will sell drone AI to russia and north korea!
This is mostly for show (Score:4, Interesting)
Having gone through the UK immigration system, they basically just have to be shown to be adding some new hoops/controls on migrants each year so that the Brexit crazies believe the govt is 'cracking down on migrants'. Meanwhile, they make a ton of visas available and practically beg large groups of workers to come here because there is a global talent competition and their entire economy is built on services - aka skilled workers.
When I was going through it the big thing was adding NHS 'fees' that went up each year. These were basically arbitrary and in addition to the application processing fee that was also arbitrary (FOI request showed it was a huge profit generator for the department) and also went up each year. Putting aside the technical detail that migrants pay for the NHS through their taxes anyway, they could have easily just added the NHS fee to the visa fee, but instead they make it separate so that they can claim that they're clamping down on migrants using the NHS. They also kept going on about bringing in an Australian style points based system, even though they have had this for at least 20 years, and for many categories it's basically - you need 100 points to get a visa, - q: are you married to a british national? Yes = 100 points. But apparently having a policy with 'Australian style' in it polled well with the Brexit crazies.
But to be honest, my actual dealings with the Home Office were good, and every year they made huge improvements to their IT processes. Other than the obscene fees they would charge for everything (you basically had to pay for the premium service for anything unless you wanted to queue forever), it was pretty smooth and much better than the days when you'd have to spend a whole day at the hell hole that is Croydon waiting to get your papers stamped.
Re: (Score:3)
They use face recognition at the border for people with a UK biometric passport. There is talk of extending it to be used in other settings, as part of the Hostile Environment. For example, NHS staff complain about having to determine someone's eligibility for free(ish) treatment, and by offering a face scanner they can reduce the workload.
Police use is a good example of why you need to be sure to force them to remove your data from their computer if you are innocent. Otherwise there is a risk that your fin
Re: (Score:2)
For example, NHS staff complain about having to determine someone's eligibility for free(ish) treatment, and by offering a face scanner they can reduce the workload.
There's no need for that, whatsoever. All that's needed is a database which permits you to look up whether someone has coverage. For example here in california we have MEDS, which is the system used to process Medi-Cal (California's Medicare implementation.) It gets batch transfers from the various other systems every night. Partnership Health Care (a non-profit community based health care organization that contracts with the State to administer Medi-Cal) has read-only access to enough of MEDS to verify ide
"something something George Floyd" (Score:2)
"Police" and "immigration" services. (Score:2)
This Will Not Be Forgotten (Score:1)
How about, "Came to their senses"? (Score:3)
The claim that a system that automates matching photos is incompatible with human rights law is ridiculous. Especially since the central argument seems to be nothing more than, "it's not always accurate enough". Well, demanding that the people who can improve it don't even try illuminates the inherent dishonesty of that argument. Were they honest, they'd be talking about what needs to be improved before it's ready to deploy, not the absurdity that this is the one technology ever that can't possibly be improved.
Since they aren't being honest, then the reasons they oppose the tech must not be how effective it is or isn't when dealing with darker skin tones.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving abusive governments more weapons to be abusive does not sound like 'sanity'.
https://banthescan.amnesty.org... [amnesty.org]
Hmm (Score:2)
IBM Returns To the Facial Recognition Market
I guess that means they're saving saving face?