Latest topics
» Ancient Malta Discoveries That Should Not Have Existed 7000 Years Ago
Yesterday at 9:32 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Ken O'Keefe on RT's CrossTalk - Iraq 15 Years On - March 23, 2018
Yesterday at 9:29 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Major Solar Storms causing Anxiety, Fatigue & Powerful Energy Shifts: March 16th-26th.
Yesterday at 9:18 pm by PurpleSkyz

» More begging.....
Yesterday at 9:17 pm by PurpleSkyz

Yesterday at 8:38 pm by robert18

» Airplane passenger photographs Huge Structure on the clouds at 10,000 feet High
Yesterday at 8:33 pm by Ponee

Yesterday at 7:18 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Augmented Reality & Mandala Consciousness
Yesterday at 7:15 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Bridgette Lyn Dolgoff on Whistleblower Nation March 20, 2018
Yesterday at 7:13 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» SeS Governing Council 500 Exposed plus more
Yesterday at 7:01 pm by PurpleSkyz

» What A Wonderful World - Puddles Pity Party
Yesterday at 1:11 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Soulless Clone Baby ‘EVE’ Born on March 22, 2018
Yesterday at 12:45 pm by PurpleSkyz

» 2018’s First Mercury Retrograde
Yesterday at 10:36 am by PurpleSkyz

» Days Before His Death, Stephen Hawking May Have Predicted the End of Our Universe
Yesterday at 10:11 am by PurpleSkyz

» All Plants Are Communicating And These Sensors Let Us Hear What They’re Saying
Yesterday at 10:08 am by PurpleSkyz

» Man Rescued A Struggling Owl Caught In Fishing Line But Never Expected The Bird’s Reaction
Yesterday at 9:56 am by PurpleSkyz

» Jeff Rense & Joel Skousen - Super Hawk John Bolton - N Korea War Sooner Than Later?
Yesterday at 9:44 am by PurpleSkyz

» The American SS Exposed
Yesterday at 9:42 am by PurpleSkyz

» NASA's Biggest Secret !
Yesterday at 9:40 am by PurpleSkyz

Yesterday at 9:39 am by PurpleSkyz

Yesterday at 9:37 am by PurpleSkyz

» NIBIRU News ~ Black Star Update plus MORE
Yesterday at 9:19 am by PurpleSkyz

» Silicon Valley: The world's greatest ever centralisation of power - David Icke
Yesterday at 8:57 am by PurpleSkyz

» I spray my chemtrails at night!
Yesterday at 7:41 am by topspin2

Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:12 pm by robert18

You are not connected. Please login or register

Out Of Mind » THE INSANITY OF REALITY » GOVERNMENT & THE NEW WORLD ORDER » Face Recognition Systems Threaten the Privacy of Millions

Face Recognition Systems Threaten the Privacy of Millions

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Face Recognition Systems Threaten the Privacy of Millions
Posted on October 20, 2016  by  Soren Dreier
Author: Ava Kofman

A broad coalition of over 50 civil liberties groups delivered a letter to the Justice Department’s civil rights division Tuesday calling for an investigation into the expanding use of face recognition technology by police. “
Safeguards to ensure this technology is being used fairly and responsibly appear to be virtually nonexistent,” the letter stated. The routine unsupervised use of face recognition systems, according to the dozens of signatories, threatens the privacy and civil liberties of millions — especially those of immigrants and people of color.
These civil rights groups were provided with advance copies of a watershed 150-page report detailing — in many cases for the first time — how local police departments across the country have been using facial recognition technology. Titled “The Perpetual Lineup,” the report, published Tuesday morning by the Georgetown Center on Privacy & Technology, reveals that police deploy face recognition technology in ways that are more widespread, advanced, and unregulated than anyone has previously reported.
“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls by and large don’t exist today,” said Clare Garvie, one of the report’s co-authors. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”
Of the 52 agencies that acknowledged using face recognition in response to 106 records requests, the authors found that only one had obtained legislative approval before doing so. Government reports have long confirmed that millions of images of citizens are collected and stored in federal face recognition databases. Since at least 2002, civil liberties advocates have raised concerns that millions of drivers license photos of Americans who have never been arrested are being subject to facial searches — a practice that amounts to a perpetual digital lineup. This report augments such fears, demonstrating that at least one in four state or local law enforcement agencies have access to face recognition systems.
Among its findings, the report provides the most fine-grained detail to date on how exactly these face recognition systems might disproportionately impact African-Americans. “Face recognition systems are powerful — but they can also be biased,” the coalition’s letter explains. While one in two American adults have face images stored in at least one database, African-Americans are more likely than others to have their images captured and searched by face recognition systems.
In Virginia, for instance, the report shows how state police can search a mug shot database disproportionately populated with African-Americans, who are twice as likely to be arrested in the state. Not only are African-Americans more likely to be subject to searches, according to the report, but this overrepresentation puts them at greatest risk for a false match.
These errors could be compounded by the fact that some face recognition algorithms have been shown to misidentify African-Americans, women, and young people at unusually high rates. In a 2012 study co-authored by FBI experts, three algorithms that were tested performed between 5 and 10 percent worse on black faces than on white faces. And the overall accuracy of systems has been shown to decrease as a dataset expands. The Georgetown report interviewed two major facial recognition vendors which said that they did not test for racial basis, despite the fact that systems have been shown to be far from “race-blind.”
A slideshow on San Diego’s privacy policy obtained by the researchers reveals that people of color in the county are between 1.5 and 2.5 more likely to be targeted by its surveillance systems. San Diego County uses a mugshot-only system, and repeated studies have shown that African-Americans are twice as likely as white people to be arrested and searched by police.
First Amendment Concerns
The Georgetown report shows for the first time that at least five major police departments have “run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology that can do so, or expressed a written interest in buying it.” They warn that such real-time surveillance tracking could have serious implications for the right to associate privately.
“This is the ability to conduct a real time digital manhunt on the street by putting people on a watchlist,” explained Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of the Georgetown Center and one of the report’s co-authors. “Now suddenly everyone is a suspect.” Real-time recognition, he added, could have a chilling effect on people engaging in civil conduct. “It would be totally legal to take picture of people obstructing traffic and identify them.”
Indeed, as the ACLU revealed last week, face recognition systems were used to track Black Lives Matter protesters in Baltimore. “There’s a question of who is being subjected to this kind of facial recognition search in the first place,” David Rocah, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Maryland, told the Baltimore Sun. “Is it only Black Lives Matter demonstrators who get this treatment? Are they drawing those circles only in certain neighborhoods? The context in which it’s described here seems quintessentially improper.”
Bedoya pointed out that these systems in Baltimore uploaded social media photographs of protestors into these systems to conduct real-time street surveillance. “It turns the premise of the Fourth Amendment on its head,” he added.
The Georgetown report shows that some departmental policies allow for face recognition algorithms to be used in the absence of an individualized suspicion, which means the technology could conceivably be used to identify anyone. At least three agencies, according to the report, allow face recognition searches to identify witnesses of a crime in addition to criminal suspects.
As privacy organizations have previously noted, the FBI’s federal database includes and simultaneously searches photographic images of U.S. citizens who are neither criminals or suspects. The Georgetown report likewise shows that some state databases include mug shots, while others include both mug shots and driver’s license photos.
In a landmark Supreme Court decision on privacy, in which the justices unanimously concluded that the prolonged use of an unwarranted GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment, Justice Sotomayor wondered whether “people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on.”
Of the 52 agencies found by the report to have used face recognition, however, only one department’s policy explicitly prohibited officers from “using face recognition to track individuals engaging in political, religious, or other protected free speech.”
Apart from some news stories focusing on the policies of specific departments, most notably those of San Diego County, reporting on law enforcement’s use of face recognition technology has been scarce. Departments themselves have not been forthcoming about their use of the technology to identify suspects on the streets and to secure convictions. And many of the documents obtained by privacy organizations about face recognition programs largely date to 2011, prior to the federal face program’s full implementation.
Read More

Thanks to:


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum