WebProNews

Tag: Ed Markey

  • Legislation Would Ban Federal Law Enforcement From Using Facial Recognition

    Legislation Would Ban Federal Law Enforcement From Using Facial Recognition

    Senators Ed Markey and Jeff Merkley have introduced legislation that would ban federal law enforcement agencies from using facial recognition.

    In the wake of several high-profile incidents that have helped spark protests and a renewed focus on racial equality, facial recognition has come under heavy fire. While having some usefulness, facial recognition struggles with bias issues, especially related to race, ethnicity and sex. This doesn’t even begin to address the privacy issues the technology raises. Clearview AI is one company that has increasingly been in the news for blatant abuses of privacy through the use of facial recognition.

    The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act, would address these concerns by prohibiting federal law enforcement agencies from using facial recognition tech. In addition, any local or state agencies seeking federal funding would be required to take similar measures.

    “Facial recognition technology doesn’t just pose a grave threat to our privacy, it physically endangers Black Americans and other minority populations in our country,” said Senator Markey. “As we work to dismantle the systematic racism that permeates every part of our society, we can’t ignore the harms that these technologies present. I’ve spent years pushing back against the proliferation of facial recognition surveillance systems because the implications for our civil liberties are chilling and the disproportionate burden on communities of color is unacceptable. In this moment, the only responsible thing to do is to prohibit government and law enforcement from using these surveillance mechanisms. I thank Representatives Jayapal and Pressley and Senator Merkley for working with me on this critical legislation.”

    It’s unknown whether the bill will be able to gain enough support to pass. Should it succeed, however, it could fundamentally alter the privacy debate and have a profound impact on equality.

  • Troubles Mount For Clearview AI, Facial Recognition Firm

    Troubles Mount For Clearview AI, Facial Recognition Firm

    According to a report by The Verge, Clearview AI is facing challenges to both its credibility and the legality of the service it provides.

    On the heels of reports, originally covered by the New York Times, that Clearview AI has amassed more than three billion photos, scraped from social media platforms and millions of websites—and has incurred Twitter’s ire in the process—it appears the company has not been honest about its background, capabilities or the extent of its successes.

    A BuzzFeed report points out that Clearview AI’s predecessor program, Smartcheckr, was specifically marketed as being able to “provide voter ad microtargeting and ‘extreme opposition research’ to Paul Nehlen, a white nationalist who was running on an extremist platform to fill the Wisconsin congressional seat of the departing speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.”

    Further hurting the company’s credibility is an example it uses in its marketing, about an alleged terrorist that was apprehended in New York City after causing panic by disguising rice cookers as bombs. The company cites the case as one of thousands of instances in which it has aided law enforcement. The only problem is that the NYPD said they did not use Clearview in that case.

    “The NYPD did not use Clearview technology to identify the suspect in the August 16th rice cooker incident,” a spokesperson for the NYPD told BuzzFeed News. “The NYPD identified the suspect using the Department’s facial recognition practice where a still image from a surveillance video was compared to a pool of lawfully possessed arrest photos.”

    That last statement, regarding “lawfully possessed arrest photos,” is particularly stinging as the company is beginning to face legal pushback over its activities.

    New York Times journalist Kashmir Hill, who originally broke the story, cited the example of asking police officers she was interviewing to run her face through Clearview’s database. “And that’s when things got kooky,” Hill writes. “The officers said there were no results — which seemed strange because I have a lot of photos online — and later told me that the company called them after they ran my photo to tell them they shouldn’t speak to the media. The company wasn’t talking to me, but it was tracking who I was talking to.”

    Needless to say, such an Orwellian use of the technology is not sitting well with some lawmakers. According to The Verge, members of Congress are beginning to voice concerns, with Senator Ed Markey sending a letter to Clearview founder Ton-That demanding answers.

    “The ways in which this technology could be weaponized are vast and disturbing. Using Clearview’s technology, a criminal could easily find out where someone walking down the street lives or works. A foreign adversary could quickly gather information about targeted individuals for blackmail purposes,” writes Markey. “Clearview’s product appears to pose particularly chilling privacy risks, and I am deeply concerned that it is capable of fundamentally dismantling Americans’ expectation that they can move, assemble, or simply appear in public without being identified.”

    The Verge also cites a recent Twitter post by Senator Ron Wyden, one of the staunchest supporters of individual privacy, in which he comments on the above disturbing instance of Clearview monitoring Ms. Hill’s interactions with police officers.

    “It’s extremely troubling that this company may have monitored usage specifically to tamp down questions from journalists about the legality of their app. Everyday we witness a growing need for strong federal laws to protect Americans’ privacy.”

    —Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) January 19, 2020

    Ultimately, Clearview may well provide the impetus for lawmakers to craft a comprehensive, national-level privacy law, something even tech CEOs are calling for.

  • Google Privacy Changes Draw Suspicion, Senator Pens Letter to FTC

    One U.S. Senator wants the Federal Trade Commission to take another look at Google, this time for privacy changes the company announced last week that will allow them to use your name and face in advertisements.

    Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has written a letter to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, asking her to look into whether or not Google’s new Terms of Service changes violate its previous agreement with the commission – the one stemming from the 2011 settlement over alleged Google Buzz privacy violations.

    “Yesterday, Google proposed changes to its Terms of Service. The company’s proposed new policy will soon make it possible to display users’ names, photos, and endorsements of marketers’ products across the Web. This shift in Google’s policy raises a number of important questions about whether Google is altering its privacy policy in a manner inconsistent with its consent agreement with the Commission and, if the changes go into effect, the degree to which users’ identities, words, and opinions could be shared across the Web,” says Markey.

    Google announced the ToS changes last week, and they will go into effect on November 11th. The new ToS basically lets Google use your profile name and picture across all Google products as they see fit. Of course, this means ads. Say you wrote a nice 4-star review of some spa on Google+? Bam, your face is now on an ad…

    Google’s name for this is “shared endorsements,” and you can go toy with your privacy settings to get your face off of Google’s ads. But it is opt-out, which is sure to piss off privacy hawks. And it only really covers your name and face in ads, not all of the other Google products that the company has put on the same, level field with previous privacy policy updates.

    “Moreover, in addition to being an opt-out mechanism, Google’s announced privacy changes come over two years after the company reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. In that matter, the Commission had alleged that Google used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when Google Buzz was launched in 2010. Google and the FTC agreed on a settlement that bars the company from future privacy misrepresentations; requires Google to implement a comprehensive privacy policy; and initiates regular, independent privacy audits of the company for the next two decades,” says Markey.

    In 2011, Google finalized a settlement with the FTC over Google Buzz. Google was accused of using deceptive tactics and violating privacy promises to users. The settlement had a few consequences, mostly making sure the company stayed away from any future privacy sleight-of-hand, and also requiring Google to implement a “comprehensive privacy program.” Google was also forced to submit to independent privacy audits for the next couple of decades.

    Google’s still taking flak for the Google Buzz privacy flap, and in the time since the settlement the company has run afoul of the federal agency on other occasions.

    Here’s Senator Markey’s full letter to the FTC:

    October 12, 2013

    The Honorable Edith Ramirez
    Chairwoman
    Federal Trade Commission
    600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
    Washington, DC 20001

    Dear Chairwoman Ramirez:
    Yesterday, Google proposed changes to its Terms of Service. The company’s proposed new policy will soon make it possible to display users’ names, photos, and endorsements of marketers’ products across the Web. This shift in Google’s policy raises a number of important questions about whether Google is altering its privacy policy in a manner inconsistent with its consent agreement with the Commission and, if the changes go into effect, the degree to which users’ identities, words, and opinions could be shared across the Web.

    Under the new advertisement policy, called “shared endorsements”, users’ names and pictures, along with their ratings or comments, could appear in advertisements on any of the millions of Web sites that comprise Google’s display advertising network. For example, if a user follows a restaurant on Google Plus, that user’s name, photo, and positive endorsement may be displayed in advertisements for that restaurant that friends and others see.

    I understand that, according to Google’s Terms of Service Update: “When it comes to shared endorsements in ads, you can control the use of your Profile name and photo via the Shared Endorsements setting. If you turn the setting to “off,” your Profile name and photo will not show up on that ad for your favorite bakery or any other ads.” Nevertheless, Google’s Update continues: “This setting only applies to use in ads, and doesn’t change whether your Profile name or photo may be used in other places such as Google Play.”

    Moreover, in addition to being an opt-out mechanism, Google’s announced privacy changes come over two years after the company reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. In that matter, the Commission had alleged that Google used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when Google Buzz was launched in 2010. Google and the FTC agreed on a settlement that bars the company from future privacy misrepresentations; requires Google to implement a comprehensive privacy policy; and initiates regular, independent privacy audits of the company for the next two decades.

    I respectfully request the Commission’s views on whether Google’s planned changes violate the settlement agreement. I also request that the Commission provide me with information about any actions it has taken or plans to take to investigate whether Google’s proposed changes to its privacy policy violate its agreement with the Commission.

    Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions, please have a member of your staff contact Joseph Wender at 202-224-2742.

    Sincerely,
    Edward J. Markey

    Image via Ed Markey, Facebook