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.

Politico reports that Clearview AI has been sent a “notice of allowance” by the US Patent and Trademark Office. The notice means that it will be granted the patent once it pays the administration fees.

Clearview AI offers one of the most powerful facial recognition systems in the world. In the wake of the US Capitol raid, Clearview AI boasted that police use of its facial recognition system increased 26 percent.

The controversy around Clearview AI is that – aside from some potential far-right links – its system uses over 10 billion photos scraped from online web profiles without the explicit consent of the individuals.

“Common law has never recognised a right to privacy for your face,” Clearview AI lawyer Tor Ekeland once argued. Ekeland, it’s worth noting, gained notoriety as “The Troll’s Lawyer” after defending clients including self-described neo-Nazi troll Andrew Auernheimer.

‘Unreasonably intrusive and unfair’

Last month, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) imposed a potential fine of just over £17 million to Clearview AI and ordered the company to destroy the personal data it holds on British citizens and cease further processing.

Leaked documents suggest Clearview AI’s system was tested by UK authorities including the Metropolitan Police, Ministry of Defense, the National Crime Agency, and a number of police constabularies including Surrey, North Yorkshire, Suffolk, and Northamptonshire. However, the system is said to no longer be being used or tested in the UK.

“UK data protection legislation does not stop the effective use of technology to fight crime, but to enjoy public trust and confidence in their products technology providers must ensure people’s legal protections are respected and complied with,” commented UK Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham.

The UK’s decision was the result of a joint probe launched with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) into Cleaview AI’s practices.

Earlier in the month, the OAIC reached the same conclusion as the ICO and ordered Clearview AI to to destroy the biometric data that it collected on Australians and cease further collection.

“I consider that the act of uploading an image to a social media site does not unambiguously indicate agreement to collection of that image by an unknown third party for commercial purposes,” said Australia’s Information Commissioner Angelene Falk.

“The covert collection of this kind of sensitive information is unreasonably intrusive and unfair,” Falk said. “It carries significant risk of harm to individuals, including vulnerable groups such as children and victims of crime, whose images can be searched on Clearview AI’s database.”

The first patent ‘around the use of large-scale internet data’

Major web companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Venmo sent cease-and-desist letters to Clearview AI demanding the company stops scraping photos and data from their platforms.

Clearview AI founder Hoan Ton-That is unabashedly proud of the mass data-scraping system that his company has built and believes that it’s key to fighting criminal activities such as human trafficking. The company even says its application could be useful for finding out more about a person they’ve just met, such as through dating or business.

“There are other facial recognition patents out there — that are methods of doing it — but this is the first one around the use of large-scale internet data,” Ton-That told Politico in an interview.

Rights groups have criticised the seemingly imminent decision to grant Clearview AI a patent as essentially patenting a violation of human rights law.

(Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash)

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo North America on 11-12 May 2022.

The post Clearview AI is close to obtaining a patent despite regulatory crackdown appeared first on AI News.

The local government area is located in Victoria, Australia, and has an area of 37 square kilometers and a population of around 183,756. Illegal waste dumping in the city is a problem that causes both hygiene and safety problems.

Using Nokia’s Scene Analytics AI technology, the city hopes to gain a deeper understanding of waste disposal behaviour across the area.

Rob Mccabe, Head of Enterprise of Australia and New Zealand at Nokia, said:

“The City of Melbourne is using robust AI technology to offer its citizens, visitors, and businesses a greener and more liveable community.

In helping the City of Melbourne monitor and enhance services with real-time driven actions, Nokia Scene Analytics is supporting the safety, security and operational continuity of this city in a proactive and automated way.”

An existing network of cameras is being used as IoT sensors to monitor waste compactors. Nokia’s AI is used to filter and collate data from the cameras – combining it with other data, including from the compactor itself – to create real-time alerts and produce reports.

Lord Mayor Sally Capp, City of Melbourne, commented:

“This is a great example of using new technology to help remove illegal waste more quickly, make our city cleaner, and protect the environment.

Our partnership with Nokia is another way we are gathering data to make Melbourne a safer, smarter, and more sustainable city.

This innovative project will help to avoid hazards and make our streets even cleaner by allowing our waste services to better understand behavior trends related to the illegal and dangerous dumping of waste.”  

A virtual “tripwire” allows for real-time monitoring of compactors. Object detection and counting were used to determine the items being placed in the compactor and their impact on it. This data can be used to help predict when compactors may require maintenance in order to minimise downtime.

During the trial, all faces and license plates were blurred to maintain the privacy of individuals.

(Image Credit: City of Melbourne)

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 City of Melbourne trials Nokia’s AI tech to keep streets clean and safe appeared first on AI News.

An initial version of the legislation was introduced in 2020 but was reintroduced June 15 2021 by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.)

“We do not have to forgo privacy and justice for safety,” said Senator Markey. “This legislation is about rooting out systemic racism and stopping invasive technologies from becoming irreversibly embedded in our society.

“We simply cannot ignore the technologies that perpetuate injustice and that means that law enforcement should not be using facial recognition tools today. I urge my colleagues in Congress to join this effort and pass this important legislation.”

The legislation aims for a blanket ban on the use of facial and biometric recognition technologies by government agencies following a string of abuses and proven biases.

“This is a technology that is fundamentally incompatible with basic liberty and human rights. It’s more like nuclear weapons than alcohol or cigarettes –– it can’t be effectively regulated, it must be banned entirely. Silicon Valley lobbyists are already pushing for weak regulations in the hopes that they can continue selling this dangerous and racist technology to law enforcement. But experts and advocates won’t be fooled,” said Evan Greer, Director of Fight for the Future.

Human rights group ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has also been among the leading voices in opposing facial recognition technologies. The group’s lawyers have supported victims of facial recognition – such as the wrongful arrest of black male Robert Williams on his lawn in front of his family – and backed both state- and national-level attempts to ban government use of the technology.

Kate Ruane, Senior Legislative Counsel for the ACLU, said:

“The perils of face recognition technology are not hypothetical — study after study and real life have already shown us its dangers. 

The technology’s alarming rate of inaccuracy when used against people of colour has led to the wrongful arrests of multiple Black men including Robert Williams, an ACLU client.

Giving law enforcement even more powerful surveillance technology empowers constant surveillance, harms racial equity, and is not the answer.

It’s past time to take action, and the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act is an important step to halt government use of face recognition technology.”

Critics of the legislation have pointed towards the social benefits of such technologies and propose that more oversight is required rather than a blanket ban.

The Security Industry Association (SIA) claims that a blanket ban would prevent legitimate uses of facial and biometric recognition technologies including:

• Reuniting victims of human trafficking with their families and loved ones.
• Identifying the individuals who stormed the US Capitol on 6 Jan.
• Detecting use of fraudulent documentation by non-citizens at air ports of entry.
• Aiding counterterrorism investigations in critical situations.
• Exonerating innocent individuals accused of crimes.

“Rather than impose sweeping moratoriums, SIA encourages Congress to propose balanced legislation that promulgates reasonable safeguards to ensure that facial recognition technology is used ethically, responsibly and under appropriate oversight and that the United States remains the global leader in driving innovation,” comments Don Erickson, CEO of the SIA.

To support its case, the SIA recently commissioned a poll (PDF) from Schoen Cooperman Research which found that 68 percent of Americans believe facial recognition can make society safer. Support is higher for specific applications such as for airlines (75%) and security at office buildings (70%).

As part of ACLU-led campaigns, multiple jurisdictions have already prohibited police use of facial recognition technology. These jurisdictions include San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland, California; Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Easthampton, Northampton, Springfield, and Somerville, Massachusetts; New Orleans, Louisiana; Jackson, Mississippi; Portland, Maine; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; King County, Washington; and the states of Virginia and Vermont. New York state also suspended use of face recognition in schools and California suspended its use with police-worn body cameras.

A copy of the legislation can be found here (PDF)

(Photo by Joe Gadd 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 Reintroduction of facial recognition legislation receives mixed responses appeared first on AI News.

The web giant’s Rekognition service is one of the most powerful facial recognition tools available. Last year, Amazon signed a one-year moratorium that banned its use by police departments following a string of cases where facial recognition services – from various providers – were found to be inaccurate and/or misused by law enforcement.

Amazon has now extended its ban indefinitely.

Facial recognition services have already led to wrongful arrests that disproportionally impacted marginalised communities.

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a complaint against the Detroit police after black male Robert Williams was arrested on his front lawn “as his wife Melissa looked on and as his daughters wept from the trauma” following a misidentification by a facial recognition system.

Williams was held in a “crowded and filthy” cell overnight without being given any reason before being released on a cold and rainy January night where he was forced to wait outside on the curb for approximately an hour while his wife scrambled to find childcare so that she could come and pick him up.

“Facial recognition is inherently dangerous and inherently oppressive. It cannot be reformed or regulated. It must be abolished,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of digital rights group Fight for the Future.

Clearview AI – a controversial facial recognition provider that scrapes data about people from across the web and is used by approximately 2,400 agencies across the US alone – boasted in January that police use of its system jumped 26 percent following the Capitol raid.

Last year, the UK and Australia launched a joint probe into Clearview AI’s practices. Clearview AI was also forced to suspend operations in Canada after the federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada opened an investigation into the company.

Many states, countries, and even some police departments are taking matters into their own hands and banning the use of facial recognition by law enforcement. Various rights groups continue to apply pressure and call for more to follow.

Human rights group Liberty won the first international case banning the use of facial recognition technology for policing in August last year. Liberty launched the case on behalf of Cardiff, Wales resident Ed Bridges who was scanned by the technology first on a busy high street in December 2017 and again when he was at a protest in March 2018.

Following the case, the Court of Appeal ruled that South Wales Police’s use of facial recognition technology breaches privacy rights, data protection laws, and equality laws. South Wales Police had used facial recognition technology around 70 times – with around 500,000 people estimated to have been scanned by May 2019 – but must now halt its use entirely.

Facial recognition tests in the UK so far have been nothing short of a complete failure. An initial trial at the 2016 Notting Hill Carnival led to not a single person being identified. A follow-up trial the following year led to no legitimate matches, but 35 false positives.

A 2019 independent report into the Met Police’s facial recognition trials concluded that it was only verifiably accurate in just 19 percent of cases.

(Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash)

Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this? Attend the co-located 5G Expo, IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

The post Amazon will continue to ban police from using its facial recognition AI appeared first on AI News.

The facial recognition system relies on scraping the data of people from across the web without their explicit consent, a practice which has naturally raised some eyebrows—including the ACLU’s which called it a “nightmare scenario” for privacy.

Around three billion images are said to have been scraped for Clearview AI’s system.

“Common law has never recognised a right to privacy for your face,” Clearview AI lawyer Tor Ekeland once argued.

Whether you call them protestors or domestic terrorists, the Trump supporters who raided the US Capitol Building last week – incited by the president to halt democracy and overturn the votes of millions of Americans – committed clear criminal offences that were bipartisanly condemned.

In comments to New York Times, Clearview AI CEO Hoan Ton-That claimed the company’s witnesses “a 26 percent increase of searches over our usual weekday search volume” on January 7th, following the riots.

Given the number of individuals involved, law enforcement has a gargantuan task to identify and locate the people that went far beyond exercising their right to peaceful protest and invaded a federal building, caused huge amounts of damage, and threatened elected representatives and staff.

The FBI has issued public appeals, but it’s little surprise that law enforcement is turning to automated means—regardless of the controversy. According to Clearview AI, approximately 2,400 agencies across the US use the company’s facial recognition technology.

Last year, the UK and Australia launched a joint probe into Clearview AI’s practices.

“The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have opened a joint investigation into the personal information handling practices of Clearview Inc., focusing on the company’s use of ‘scraped’ data and biometrics of individuals,” the ICO wrote in a statement.

A similar probe was also launched by the EU’s privacy watchdog. The European Data Protection Board ruled that any use of the service by law enforcement in Europe would “likely not be consistent with the EU data protection regime” and that it “has doubts as to whether any Union or Member State law provides a legal basis for using a service such as the one offered by Clearview AI.”

Clearview AI has already been forced to suspend operations in Canada after the federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada opened an investigation into the company.

While Clearview AI’s facial recognition tech continues to have widespread use in the US, some police departments have taken the independent decision to ban officers from using such systems due to the well-documented inaccuracies which particularly affect minority communities.

(Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash)

Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this? Attend the co-located 5G Expo, IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

The post Police use of Clearview AI’s facial recognition increased 26% after Capitol raid appeared first on AI News.

The analysis was commissioned by the UK government in October 2018 and will receive a formal response.

Algorithms bring substantial benefits to businesses and individuals able to use them effectively. However, increasing evidence suggests biases are – often unconsciously – making their way into algorithms and creating an uneven playing field.

The CDEI is the UK government’s advisory body on the responsible use of AI and data-driven technology. CDEI has spent the past two years examining the issue of algorithmic bias and how it can be tackled.

Adrian Weller, Board Member for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, said:

“It is vital that we work hard now to get this right as adoption of algorithmic decision-making increases. Government, regulators, and industry need to work together with interdisciplinary experts, stakeholders, and the public to ensure that algorithms are used to promote fairness, not undermine it.

The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation has today set out a range of measures to help the UK to achieve this, with a focus on enhancing transparency and accountability in decision-making processes that have a significant impact on individuals.

Not only does the report propose a roadmap to tackle the risks, but it highlights the opportunity that good use of data presents to address historical unfairness and avoid new biases in key areas of life.”

The report focuses on four key sectors where algorithmic bias poses the biggest risk: policing, recruitment, financial services, and local government.

Today’s facial recognition algorithms are relatively effective when used on white males, but research has consistently shown how ineffective they are with darker skin colours and females. The error rate is, therefore, higher when facial recognition algorithms are used on some parts of society over others.

In June, Detroit Police chief James Craig said facial recognition would misidentify someone around 96 percent of the time—not particularly comforting when they’re being used to perform mass surveillance of protests.

Craig’s comments were made just days after the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lodged a complaint against Detroit Police following the harrowing wrongful arrest of black male Robert Williams due to a facial recognition error.

And that’s just one example of where AI can unfairly impact some parts of society over another.

“Fairness is a highly prized human value,” the report’s preface reads. “Societies in which individuals can flourish need to be held together by practices and institutions that are regarded as fair.”

Ensuring fairness in algorithmic decision-making

Transparency is required for algorithms. In financial services, a business loan or mortgage could be rejected without transparency simply because a person was born in a poor neighbourhood. Job applications could be rejected not on a person’s actual skill but dependent on where they were educated.

Such biases exist in humans and our institutions today, but automating them at scale is a recipe for disaster. Removing bias from algorithms is not an easy task but if achieved would lead to increased fairness by taking human biases out of the equation.

“It is well established that there is a risk that algorithmic systems can lead to biased decisions, with perhaps the largest underlying cause being the encoding of existing human biases into algorithmic systems. But the evidence is far less clear on whether algorithmic decision-making tools carry more or less risk of bias than previous human decision-making processes. Indeed, there are reasons to think that better use of data can have a role in making decisions fairer, if done with appropriate care.

When changing processes that make life-affecting decisions about individuals we should always proceed with caution. It is important to recognise that algorithms cannot do everything. There are some aspects of decision-making where human judgement, including the ability to be sensitive and flexible to the unique circumstances of an individual, will remain crucial.”

The report’s authors examined the aforementioned four key sectors to determine their current “maturity levels” in algorithmic decision-making.

In recruitment, the authors found rapid growth in the use of algorithms to make decisions at all stages. They note that adequate data is being collected to monitor outcomes but found that understanding of how to avoid human biases creeping in is lacking.

“More guidance is needed on how to ensure that these tools do not unintentionally discriminate against groups of people, particularly when trained on historic or current employment data.”

The financial services industry has relied on data to make decisions for longer than arguably any other to determine things like how likely it is an individual can repay a debt.

“Specific groups are historically underrepresented in the financial system, and there is a risk that these historic biases could be entrenched further through algorithmic systems.”

CDEI found limited use of algorithmic decision-making in UK policing but found variance across forces with regards to both usage and managing ethical risks.

“The use of data analytics tools in policing carries significant risk. Without sufficient care, processes can lead to Review into bias in algorithmic decision-making: Executive summary Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation 8 outcomes that are biased against particular groups, or systematically unfair.

In many scenarios where these tools are helpful, there is still an important balance to be struck between automated decision-making and the application of professional judgement and discretion.”

Finally, in local government, CDEI noted an increased use of algorithms to inform decision-making but most are in their early stages of deployment. Such tools can be powerful assets for societal good – like helping to plan where resources should be allocated to maintain vital services – but can also carry significant risks.

“Evidence has shown that certain people are more likely to be overrepresented in data held by local authorities and this can then lead to biases in predictions and interventions.”

The CDEI makes a number of recommendations in its report but among them is:

• Clear and mandatory transparency over how algorithms are used for public decision-making and steps taken to ensure the fair treatment of individuals.
• Full accountability for organisations implementing such technologies.
• Improving the diversity of roles involved with developing and deploying decision-making tools.
• Updating model contracts and framework agreements for public sector procurement to incorporate minimum standards around the ethical use of AI.
• The government working with regulators to provide clear guidance on the collection and use of protected characteristic data in outcome monitoring and decision-making processes. They should then encourage the use of that guidance and data to address current and historic bias in key sectors.
• Ensuring that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has sufficient resources to investigate cases of alleged algorithmic discrimination.

CDEI is overseen by an independent board which is made up of experts from across industry, civil society, academia, and government; it is an advisory body and does not directly set policies. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport is consulting on whether a statutory status would help the CDEI to deliver its remit as part of the National Data Strategy.

You can find a full copy of the CDEI’s report into tackling algorithmic bias here (PDF)

(Photo by Matt Duncan on Unsplash)

Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this? Attend the co-located 5G Expo, IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

The post CDEI launches a ‘roadmap’ for tackling algorithmic bias appeared first on AI News.

Clearview AI has repeatedly made headlines, and rarely for good reason. The company’s facial recognition technology is impressive but relies on scraping billions of people’s data from across the web.

“Common law has never recognised a right to privacy for your face,” Clearview AI lawyer Tor Ekeland argued recently.

Regulators in the UK and Australia seem to have a different perspective than Ekeland and have announced a joint probe into Clearview AI’s practices.

“The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have opened a joint investigation into the personal information handling practices of Clearview Inc., focusing on the company’s use of ‘scraped’ data and biometrics of individuals,” the ICO wrote in a statement.

“The investigation highlights the importance of enforcement cooperation in protecting the personal information of Australian and UK citizens in a globalized data environment.”

A similar probe was launched by the EU’s privacy watchdog last month.

The European Data Protection Board ruled that any use of the service by law enforcement in Europe would “likely not be consistent with the EU data protection regime” and that it “has doubts as to whether any Union or Member State law provides a legal basis for using a service such as the one offered by Clearview AI.”

Clearview AI’s facial recognition system is used by over 2,200 law enforcement agencies around the world. A recent leak suggests it’s even being used by commercial businesses like Best Buy and Macy’s. In May, Clearview said it would stop working with non–law enforcement entities.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched a lawsuit against Clearview AI in May after calling it a “nightmare scenario” for privacy.

Aside from the company’s practices, concerns have been raised about Clearview AI’s extensive ties with the far-right. Ekeland himself has gained notoriety as “The Troll’s Lawyer” for defending clients such as neo-Nazi troll Andrew Auernheimer.

“Companies like Clearview will end privacy as we know it, and must be stopped,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

(Photo by The Creative Exchange on Unsplash)

Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this? Attend the co-located 5G Expo, IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

The post UK and Australia launch joint probe into Clearview AI’s mass data scraping appeared first on AI News.

“If we would use the software only [for subject identification], we would not solve the case 95-97 percent of the time,” Craig said. “If we were just to use the technology by itself to identify someone, I would say 96 percent of the time it would misidentify.”

Craig’s comments arrive just days after the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lodged a complaint against the Detroit police following the harrowing wrongful arrest of black male Robert Williams due to a facial recognition error.

Detroit Police arrested Williams for allegedly stealing five watches valued at $3800 from a store in October 2018. A blurry CCTV image was matched by a facial recognition algorithm to Williams’ driver’s license photo.

Current AI algorithms are known to have a racism issue. Extensive studies have repeatedly shown that facial recognition algorithms are almost 100 percent accurate when used on white males, but have serious problems when it comes to darker skin colours and the fairer sex.

This racism issue was shown again this week after an AI designed to upscale blurry photos, such as those often taken from security cameras, was applied to a variety of people from the BAME communities.

Here’s a particularly famous one:

🤔🤔🤔 pic.twitter.com/LG2cimkCFm

— Chicken3gg (@Chicken3gg) June 20, 2020

And some other examples:

Last week, Boston followed in the footsteps of an increasing number of cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and California in banning facial recognition technology over human rights concerns.

“Facial recognition is inherently dangerous and inherently oppressive. It cannot be reformed or regulated. It must be abolished,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future.

Over the other side of the pond, facial recognition tests in the UK so far have also been nothing short of a complete failure. An initial trial at the 2016 Notting Hill Carnival led to not a single person being identified. A follow-up trial the following year led to no legitimate matches but 35 false positives.

An independent report into the Met Police’s facial recognition trials, conducted last year by Professor Peter Fussey and Dr Daragh Murray, concluded that it was only verifiably accurate in just 19 percent of cases.

The next chilling step for AI in surveillance is using it to predict crime. Following news of an imminent publication called ‘A Deep Neural Network Model to Predict Criminality Using Image Processing,’ over 1000 experts signed an open letter last week opposing the use of AI for such purposes.

“Machine learning programs are not neutral; research agendas and the data sets they work with often inherit dominant cultural beliefs about the world,” warned the letter’s authors.

The acknowledgement from Detroit’s police chief that current facial recognition technologies do not work in around 96 percent of cases should be reason enough to halt its use, especially for law enforcement, at least until serious improvements are made.

(Photo by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash)

Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this? Attend the co-located 5G Expo, IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

The post Detroit Police chief says AI face recognition doesn’t work ‘96% of the time’ appeared first on AI News.

While it’s been suspected that documented racial bias with facial recognition algorithms has led to false arrests, it’s been difficult to prove.

On Wednesday, the ACLU lodged a complaint against the Detroit police after black male Robert Williams was arrested on his front lawn “as his wife Melissa looked on and as his daughters wept from the trauma”. Williams was held in a “crowded and filthy” cell overnight without being given any reason.

Detroit Police arrested Williams for allegedly stealing five watches valued at $3800 from a store in October 2018. A blurry CCTV image was matched by a facial recognition algorithm to Williams’ driver’s license photo.

During an interrogation the day after his arrest, the police admitted that “the computer must have gotten it wrong”. Williams was kept incarcerated until after dark “at which point he was released out the front door, on a cold and rainy January night, where he was forced to wait outside on the curb for approximately an hour while his wife scrambled to find child care for the children so that she could come pick him up.”

Speaking to the NY Times, a Detroit police spokesperson said the department “does not make arrests based solely on facial recognition,” and claims witness interviews and a photo lineup were used.

However, a response from the Wayne County prosecutor’s office confirms the department used facial recognition to identify Williams using the security footage and an eyewitness to the crime was not shown the alleged photo lineup.

In its complaint, the ACLU demands that Detroit police end the use of facial recognition “as the facts of Mr. Williams’ case prove both that the technology is flawed and that DPD investigators are not competent in making use of such technology.”

This week, Boston became the latest city to ban facial recognition technology for municipal use. Boston follows an increasing number of cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and California who’ve banned the technology over human rights concerns.

“Facial recognition is inherently dangerous and inherently oppressive. It cannot be reformed or regulated. It must be abolished,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future.

“Boston just became the latest major city to stop the use of this extraordinary and toxic surveillance technology. Every other city should follow suit.”

Cases like Mr Williams’ are certainly strengthening such calls. Over 1,000 experts signed an open letter this week against the use of AI for the next chilling step, crime prediction.

(Photo by ev on Unsplash)

Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this? Attend the co-located 5G Expo, IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

The post The ACLU uncovers the first known wrongful arrest due to AI error appeared first on AI News.