UK's Surveillance Commissioner warns of 'ethically fraught' facial recognition tech concerns
- Reference: 1632231908
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/09/21/uk_surveillance_commissioner_facial_recog_warning/
- Source link:
That’s according to Professor Fraser Sampson, the UK Government’s Surveillance Camera Commissioner (SCC), who works with the Home Office overseeing tech-related surveillance in the UK.
Where biometric surveillance systems are being bought with public money and deployed in the public interest then there is surely a legitimate expectation that all parties will adopt an ethical and human rights compliant approach
He was responding to [1]last week’s report by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council (HRC) which argued that the protection of human rights should be at the heart of the development of AI-based systems including areas such as law enforcement.
The report went on to say that unless sufficient safeguards are in place to protect human rights, there should be a moratorium on the sale of AI systems and those that fail to meet international human rights laws should be banned.
Now, the SCC has added his voice to the debate as lawmakers around the world attempt to create a workable legal framework in the face growing calls for human rights protections.
[2]
“This is a fast-evolving area and the evidence is elusive but it may be that the aspects currently left to self-determination present the greatest risk to communities or simply to give rise to the greatest concern among citizens,” he told The Register .
[3]
[4]
“It may even be the case that some technological biometric and surveillance capabilities such as FRT are so ethically fraught that they can only be acceptably carried out under licence in the future – perhaps akin to the regulatory arrangements for human fertilisation and embryology.
“That is a matter of policy for others," he said.
[5]
Professor Sampson: "But we need as a minimum a single set of clear principles by which those using the biometric and surveillance camera systems will be held to account, transparently and auditably.”
[6]Plot twist: Google's not spying on King's Cross with facial recognition tech, but its landlord is
[7]Metropolitan Police's facial recognition tech not only crap, but also of dubious legality – report
[8]Those facial recognition trials in the UK? They should be banned, warns Parliamentary committee
[9]Zero arrests, 2 correct matches, no criminals: London cops' facial recog tech slammed
[10]Teen turned away from roller rink after AI wrongly identifies her as banned troublemaker
[11]Let's check in with our friends in England and, oh good, bloke fined after hiding face from police mug-recog cam
Asked to comment further on the HRC’s report he told us: “Where biometric surveillance systems are being bought with public money and deployed in the public interest then there is surely a legitimate expectation that all parties will adopt an ethical and human rights compliant approach.”
“I agree that, if used without sufficient regard to how they affect people’s human rights, the emerging technological capabilities in the area of surveillance and biometrics can be negative and potentially catastrophic,” he added.
The use of AI and technologies such as FRT has recently been the subject of governmental scrutiny both in the UK and the [12]US .
In 2019, London's Metropolitan Police [13]deployed a system that was not only extremely inaccurate, but led to them arresting people based on dodgy matches anyway.
[14]
In May of that year, [15]Met cops fined a man for covering his face while conducting a test of the technology in Romford, London.
In August 2020, a court of appeal found that use of facial recognition technology by South Wales police had been [16]unlawful .
In April, the EU published its own proposals for harmonised rules on artificial intelligence [17](Artificial Intelligence Act) where it too recognised the benefits while acknowledging the “new risks or negative consequences for individuals or the society.” ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/16/human_rights_ai/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YUoBu7g001OpQYpKI0DxOgAAAMA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YUoBu7g001OpQYpKI0DxOgAAAMA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YUoBu7g001OpQYpKI0DxOgAAAMA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YUoBu7g001OpQYpKI0DxOgAAAMA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2019/08/12/facial_recognition_kings_cross_london/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/04/met_police_slammed_for_facial_recognition_practice/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/18/uk_government_facial_recognition/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2018/05/15/met_police_slammed_inaccurate_facial_recognition/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/16/facial_recognition_failure/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2019/05/16/police_face_recognition/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/01/us_facial_recognition_backlash/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/04/met_police_slammed_for_facial_recognition_practice/
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YUoBu7g001OpQYpKI0DxOgAAAMA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2019/05/16/police_face_recognition/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/11/facial_recognition_cardiff_unlawful_court_appeal/
[17] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Far simpler to ban them all
But you have to consider the Bayesian probabilities.
If you are in the city of london and wearing an expensive suit then P(A) the probability that you are a-priori a crook/tax-cheat/imbiber of the devil's nose candy , is 1.0
There is really no need for the police to investigate further.
Re: Far simpler to ban them all
tiggity: "I'm the one not carrying a table leg, just to be on the safe side."
I don't think any AI system was actually used when Harry Stanley* was wrongly identified as carrying a shotgun (wrapped in a plastic bag) in a pub. In that instance as far as I recall. the police failed to check with the pub if anyone else reckoned he was carrying a firearm, the telephone call 'tip-off' was anonymous and the armed police officers who challenged him seem to have been convinced he was armed, rather than trying to ascertain what he was carrying. In my view (and I wasn't on the jury, so didn't see all the evidence) his killing was a serious failure of police procedure (not checking the tip off) and training (not considering that he might not be carrying a firearm).
The problem was that in the inquest, all of the interest was on whether the police officers who shot him were guilty of 'unlawful killing', instead of questioning their training and the police procedures that night. Had I been on the jury I would have tried to insist that the training fo the officers and the failure to check with the pub were considered in the verdict.
If you were accosted in the dark in a street by armed men who shouted at you to "put the gun down!" what would you do?
*
https://hackneyhistory.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/film-the-strange-death-of-harry-stanley/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Harry_Stanley
Re: Far simpler to ban them all
Every time that situation occurs the system always chases the individuals directly involved but never investigate why the police were trained in an environment that told them that it was their job to do. It's the standard "punish the workers, never the bosses" world.
Far simpler to ban them all
Given that any (very dubious) benefits are far outweighed by problems of false positives* and massive privacy infringement.
*Ignoring false negatives, but obviously this is an issue of why biometric systems are poor as not great if your alleged terrorist is not IDed.
Given what happened to a Brazilian electrician, I'm not keen on false positives given the over the top responses we often see in the UK
I'm the one not carrying a table leg, just to be on the safe side.