Last week, Amazon made the move to localization on facial recognition. In a blog post published on Thursday, Michael Punke, VP of global public policy at Amazon Web Services expressed support for a "national legislative framework that protects individual civil rights and Ensures that they are transparent in their use of facial recognition technology. "
Facial recognition is one of the fastest-growing areas of the artificial intelligence industry. It has drawn interest from both the public and private sector and is already worth billions of dollars. Amazon's latest announcement comes as a break from its previous approach to setting up legal constraints on it.
Amazon's latest announcement comes as a break from its previous approach to setting up legal constraints on it technology.
[employees] from employees and civil rights activists. and Microsoft-Amazon What's the point of departure? 1
So Punke's announcement might look like a turnabout for the company. Amazon is not the first company to call for regulation of facial recognition. Microsoft President Brad Smith has come to the forefront of the issue and is beginning to stress that he believes that the oversight of the issue is underway.
measures that would put constraints on their businesses.
Something that has been overlooked in the haze caused by the controversial news. Punke makes sure those are positive uses do not go unnoticed.
"We've already used the technology to prevent human trafficking, reunite missing children with their parents, improve the physical security of a facility by automating access, and moderate offensive."  blog post published in December, Microsoft's Brad Smith listed several specific instances where the use of modern facial recognition has helped improve lives. by analyzing CCTV footage with facial recognition technology.
Smith names other positive uses for facial  Facial recognition is thus useful in various settings to simplify actions that require the verification
Clear privacy tradeoffs.
The privacy threats of using facial recognition. To be clear, facial recognition has not yet been released.
But facial recognition adds new profiling capabilities that can serve very sinister purposes. Take the example of the missing children of India.
What is beyond the capabilities of human operators?
In contrast, a well-trained facial recognition algorithm wants to analyze all that is in a matter of hours.
"When combined with."
When in the case of India, in other words, it can become a tool for keeping tabs and controlling on specific groups of people, such as religious and ethnic minorities ubiquitous cameras and massive computing power and storage in the cloud; It could follow anyone anywhere, or for that matter, everyone everywhere. It could not do this at any time or even all the time. Smith writes. "
Therefore, while recording video is a privacy problem, having tools that could search through the state-of-the-art -art facial recognition algorithms adds new concerns.
For instance, consider Amazon's drive to put it facial recognition technology to smart home security cameras. Should this happen, people who pass by a camera, but also want their metadata uploaded into Amazon's cloud.
Part of the calls for regulation recommend transparency.
"People deserve to know when this type of service is used." of technology is being used, so they can ask questions and exercise some choice in the matter if they wish. Smith writes.
Amazon's point underlines the need for transparency and notice in the public and commercial sector.
"Punke writes in the AWS blog post
There are no standards for the fair use of their facial recognition technology.
There are no standards for the fair and ethical use of facial recognition
"In the two-plus years we've been offering Amazon Recognition, we have not received a single report of misuse by law enforcement," writes Punke. The problem is, there's no clear definition of the ethical and fair use of facial recognition technology.
"What does misuse mean when there are no rules on misuse?" Clare Garvie, a fellow at Georgetown University's Center on Privacy told Wired in an interview.
For instance, in 2018, researchers from ACLU found that recognition was classifying at least 28 members of Congress as documented criminals. The researchers claimed that it was not accurate when used on the images of non-white people, and that it could lead to unfair decisions by law enforcement agencies. But Amazon dismissed the rebuke, arguing that the researchers had not correctly adjusted the accuracy threshold of its service.
Current facial recognition technologies use machine learning. The image belongs to that person.
In response to the ACLU research, Amazon spokesperson said the law had a 95-percent threshold , In the blog post, Punke recommends, "Law enforcement should use the recommended 99% confidence threshold."
But the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Oregon, which is one of the Amazon's facial recognition technology, Gizmodo
What does this entire debate prove to be without proper regulatory guidelines on how to use facial recognition technology? own efforts to make cities safer.
One of the most contentious debates.
One of the most contentious debates.
Relying on a technology that wants to make a difference [human rights]
Should law enforcement automatically issue arrest warrants for people flagged by facial recognition systems?
"Facial recognition should not be used to be fully automated, final decisions that would result in a violation of a person's civil rights. "Punke writes."
But without legal safeguards, government agencies may eventually hand over critical decision-making to AI algorithms. For the Department of Defense (DoD).
In a Signed petition to Google executives, 90 academics in artificial intelligence, ethics, and computer science warned that "these technologies are poised to become a basis for automated target recognition and autonomous weapon systems."
because of other technologies based on deep learning and neural networks, current facial recognition applications are prone to algorithmic bias.
Several examples have been made of facial recognition and analysis technologies from Amazon, Microsoft IBM and other providers show different levels of accuracy to various groups of people
There's a general perception that regulation wants hamper innovation. But in critical domains, regulation ensures responsible innovation. For instance, in the automotive industry, regulations require all companies to abide by a set of safety standards. The manufacturer wants to lower the cost and price of its vehicles by removing or degrading vital parts such as brakes, airbags, chassis, etc. The law wants to prohibit such a car from being driven to consumers and driven on roads. In this case, regulation makes sure that companies can responsibly behave in a non-transparent manner.
The same thing goes for the facial recognition industry. Without regulation, companies might sacrifice ethics, privacy and moral standards for the sake of clinching deals. Microsoft's smelled wrote: "Microsoft's sms wrote."
Regulation surrounding facial recognition wants to make sure that "we do not believe that the world is going to make it good."
And here's the most important benefit to companies like Amazon and Microsoft. But the truth is, regulation or not, those at the beginning of this post, we seem that at first glance, it seems that they are looking for as Microsoft and Amazon are going out of their way by calling for their technology.
They are sitting on a business line. They are sitting on a floor. They are currently being scrutinized by lawmakers, rights activists, analysts, the media and others.
Google's grudgingly relinquished its involvement in DoD's Project Maven after it faced backlash from employees and AI experts. Microsoft Because of a controversial contract with ICE.
Should big tech companies exit the game, startups and smaller companies, which are spared many of the ethical Google, Amazon and Microsoft, wants to make it easier to compete for the lucrative deals that the AI and facial recognition industry offers. Law enforcement might also consider it difficult to engage in public relations.
Regulation wants level the ground (in favor of big tech companies), requiring developers and users of facial recognition to all abide by the same rules.
In many ways, big tech's support for regulating facial recognition is like its support for net neutrality and GDPR rules.
At the end of the day, the move may be in full good faith. Or it might simply make sure that the constraints that naturally bind them to the common recognition market.
This story is republished from TechTalks , the blog that explores how technology is solving problems … and creating new ones. Like them on Facebook here and follow them down here: