Porcha Woodruff, an African American woman who was eight months pregnant at the time, is the sixth individual to come forward and report being falsely accused of a crime because of the controversial technology utilised by law enforcement.

Woodruff was accused of robbery and carjacking.

“Are you kidding?” Woodruff claims to have said to the officers, gesturing to her stomach to highlight how nonsensical the allegation was while being eight months pregnant.

The pattern of wrongful arrests based on faulty facial recognition has raised serious concerns, particularly as all six victims known by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have been African Americans. However, Woodruff’s case is notable as she is the first woman to report such an incident happening to her.

This latest incident marks the third known allegation of a wrongful arrest in the past three years attributed to the Detroit Police Department specifically and its reliance on inaccurate facial recognition matches.

Robert Williams, represented by the ACLU of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Initiative (CRLI), has an ongoing lawsuit against the DPD for his wrongful arrest in January 2020 due to the same technology.

Phil Mayor, Senior Staff Attorney at ACLU of Michigan, commented: “It’s deeply concerning that the Detroit Police Department knows the devastating consequences of using flawed facial recognition technology as the basis for someone’s arrest and continues to rely on it anyway.

“As Ms Woodruff’s horrifying experience illustrates, the Department’s use of this technology must end.”

The use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement has been a contentious issue, with concerns raised about its accuracy, racial bias, and potential violations of privacy and civil liberties.

Studies have shown that these systems are more prone to errors when identifying individuals with darker skin tones, leading to a disproportionate impact on marginalised communities.

Critics argue that relying on facial recognition as the sole basis for an arrest poses significant risks and can lead to severe consequences for innocent individuals, as seen in the case of Woodruff.

Calls for transparency and accountability have escalated, with civil rights organisations urging the Detroit Police Department to halt its use of facial recognition until the technology is thoroughly vetted and proven to be unbiased and accurate.

“The DPD continues to hide its abuses of this technology, forcing people whose rights have been violated to expose its wrongdoing case by case,” added Mayor.

“DPD should not be permitted to avoid transparency and hide its own misconduct from public view at the same time it continues to subject Detroiters to dragnet surveillance.” 

As the case unfolds, the public remains watchful of how the Detroit Police Department will respond to the mounting pressure to address concerns about the misuse of facial recognition technology and its impact on the rights and lives of innocent individuals.

(Image Credit: Oleg Gamulinskii from Pixabay)

See also: UK will host global AI summit to address potential risks

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The event is co-located with Digital Transformation Week.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

The post Error-prone facial recognition leads to another wrongful arrest appeared first on AI News.

The act aims to regulate AI based on its potential to cause harm and follows a risk-based approach, prohibiting applications that pose an unacceptable risk while imposing strict regulations for high-risk use cases.

The timing of AI regulation has been a subject of debate, but Dragoș Tudorache, one of the European Parliament’s co-rapporteurs on the AI Act, emphasised that it is the right time to regulate AI due to its profound impact.

Dr Ventsislav Ivanov, AI Expert and Lecturer at Oxford Business College, said: “Regulating artificial intelligence is one of the most important political challenges of our time, and the EU should be congratulated for attempting to tame the risks associated with technologies that are already revolutionising our daily lives.

“As the chaos and controversy accompanying this vote show, this will be not an easy feat. Taking on the global tech companies and other interested parties will be akin to Hercules battling the seven-headed hydra.”

The adoption of the AI Act faced uncertainty as a political deal crumbled, leading to amendments from various political groups.

One of the main points of contention was the use of Remote Biometric Identification, with liberal and progressive lawmakers seeking to ban its real-time use except for ex-post investigations of serious crimes. The centre-right European People’s Party attempted to introduce exceptions for exceptional circumstances like terrorist attacks or missing persons, but their efforts were unsuccessful.

A tiered approach for AI models will be introduced with the act, including stricter regulations for foundation models and generative AI.

The European Parliament intends to introduce mandatory labelling for AI-generated content and mandate the disclosure of training data covered by copyright. This move comes as generative AI, exemplified by ChatGPT, gained widespread attention—prompting the European Commission to launch outreach initiatives to foster international alignment on AI rules.

MEPs made several significant changes to the AI Act, including expanding the list of prohibited practices to include subliminal techniques, biometric categorisation, predictive policing, internet-scraped facial recognition databases, and emotion recognition software.

An extra layer was introduced for high-risk AI applications and extended the list of high-risk areas and use cases in law enforcement, migration control, and recommender systems of prominent social media platforms.

Robin Röhm, CEO of Apheris, commented: “The passing of the plenary vote on the EU’s AI Act marks a significant milestone in AI regulation, but raises more questions than it answers. It will make it more difficult for start-ups to compete and means that investors are less likely to deploy capital into companies operating in the EU.

“It is critical that we allow for capital to flow to businesses, given the cost of building AI technology, but the risk-based approach to regulation proposed by the EU is likely to lead to a lot of extra burden for the European ecosystem and will make investing less attractive.”

With the European Parliament’s adoption of its position on the AI Act, interinstitutional negotiations will commence with the EU Council of Ministers and the European Commission. The negotiations – known as trilogues – will address key points of contention such as high-risk categories, fundamental rights, and foundation models.

Spain, which assumes the rotating presidency of the Council in July, has made finalising the AI law its top digital priority. The aim is to reach a deal by November, with multiple trilogues planned as a backup.

The negotiations are expected to intensify in the coming months as the EU seeks to establish comprehensive regulations for AI, balancing innovation and governance while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights.

“The key to good regulation is ensuring that safety concerns are addressed while not stifling innovation. It remains to be seen whether the EU can achieve this,” concludes Röhm.

(Image Credit: European Union 2023 / Mathieu Cugnot)

Similar: UK will host global AI summit to address potential risks

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The event is co-located with Digital Transformation Week.

The post European Parliament adopts AI Act position appeared first on AI News.

On Monday, the country’s Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) issued official stays to two municipalities – the southern Italian city of Lecce and the Tuscan city of Arezzo – over their experiments with biometrics technologies.

The agency banned facial recognition systems using biometric data until a specific law governing its use is adopted.

“The moratorium arises from the need to regulate eligibility requirements, conditions and guarantees relating to facial recognition, in compliance with the principle of proportionality,” the agency said in a statement.

However, an exception was added for biometric data technology that is being used “to fight crime” or in a judicial investigation.

In Lecce, the municipality’s authorities said they would begin using facial recognition technologies. Italy’s Data Protection Agency ordered Lecce’s authorities to explain what systems will be used, their purpose, and the legal basis.

As for the Arezzo case, the city’s police were to be equipped with infrared smart glasses that could recognise car license plates.

Facial recognition technology is a central concern in the EU’s proposed AI regulation. The proposal has been released but will need to pass consultations within the EU before it’s adopted into law.

(Photo by Mikita Yo on Unsplash)

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

The post Italy’s facial recognition ban exempts law enforcement appeared first on AI News.

The chatbot is the product of a voice recognition company McDonald’s snapped up in 2019 called Apprente which is now known as McD Tech Labs.

McDonald’s deployed the chatbots to ten of its restaurants in Chicago, Illinois. And there lies the issue.

The state of Illinois has some of the strictest data privacy laws in the country. For example, the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) states: “No private entity may collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifier or biometric information.”

One resident, Shannon Carpenter, has sued McDonald’s on behalf of himself and other Illinois residents—claiming the fast food biz has broken BIPA by not receiving explicit written consent from its customers to process their voice data.

“Plaintiff, like the other class members, to this day does not know the whereabouts of his voiceprint biometrics which defendant obtained,” the lawsuit states.

The software is said to not only transcribe speech into text but also process it to predict personal information about the customers such as their “age, gender, accent, nationality, and national origin.”

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that McDonald’s has been testing AI software at its drive-thrus since last year.

Anyone found to have had their rights under BIPA violated are eligible for up to $5000 each per case. Given the huge number of McDonald’s customers, it’s estimated that damage payouts could exceed $5 million.

Once again, this case shows the need to be certain that any AI deployments are 100 percent compliant with increasingly strict data laws in every state and country they operate.

(Image Credit: Erik Mclean on Unsplash)

Find out more about Digital Transformation Week North America, taking place on November 9-10 2021, a virtual event and conference exploring advanced DTX strategies for a ‘digital everything’ world.

The post McDonald’s drive-thru AI bot may have broken privacy law appeared first on AI News.