老澳门开奖结果

The Department of Commerce has convened a 鈥溾�� between civil society groups (like the 老澳门开奖结果) and industry groups, with the aim of limiting face recognition as a tool of surveillance in our society by establishing common ground and creating agreement on core principles that would allow face recognition to be used in a controlled and responsible way.

The big question in such a process is: what does industry think? If you鈥檙e building powerful new surveillance technologies, what rules of the road will you accept to guide their operation and use?

Now we鈥檝e got the beginnings of an answer to that question in the form of a from the International Biometrics & Identification Association (IBIA), an industry group that represents the venders of powerful new tracking technologies such as face recognition and iris scanning. It鈥檚 the clearest indication I鈥檝e ever seen of how the biometrics industry would like surveillance to expand.

We鈥檙e off to a rocky start. In its Privacy Best Practices Recommendations for Commercial Biometric Use, the IBIA essentially denies that there are any real privacy problems with biometrics and face recognition except for the basic need to be transparent and keep information securely.

The document really speaks for itself, so I鈥檓 just going to offer some quotes (in italics, followed by my own brief editorial notes).

• Anonymity and privacy are not synonymous terms. The former is forfeited if one chooses to live in society. (Pg. 5) This would be a surprise to many of our Founding Fathers who anonymously published the Federalist Papers, one of the foundational documents of our new constitutional government. Also isn鈥檛 it exactly what we expect when we venture outside鈥攖o be largely unknown? Forfeiting that means giving up an awful lot.
• In both one鈥恡o鈥恛ne verification and one鈥恡o鈥恗any identification applications biometrics merely provides an identity result for the questions 鈥渁re you who you claim to be?鈥� or 鈥渨ho are you?鈥� These results do not necessarily diminish privacy or profile a person. (Pg. 5) It鈥檚 hard to imagine how identifying a person who was previously anonymous does anything but diminish privacy鈥攁 literally faceless watcher now knows who I am. That can be used to invade my privacy in many ways, and of course also may become the basis of a profile.
• The facial template itself, like other biometric templates, provides no personal information. (Pg. 5) This is disengenuous because of course the facial template is key to identifying an individual. It is like saying that a social security number contains no personal information.
• Surveillance is already a part of our daily life, thanks to the digital age and tremendous increases in computational power. Facial recognition does not increase its use. (Pg. 8) Arguing that a powerful new surveillance technology doesn鈥檛 increase surveillance is silly. But the broader argument is very dangerous: that we just need to accept that we are already constantly surveilled and get over it. The technical tools to create a surveillance society already exist. If we accept that they are the new normal, we subvert the only things that can prevent mass spying: our fundamental values and norms.
• Under either class of common security surveillance video technology, it isn鈥檛 practical or possible to conceive of a 鈥渇ace stalking鈥� application that can be accessed and run across all the video cameras in a surveillance system. Stalking, although thankfully infrequent, occurred before the advent of facial recognition technology, and unfortunately will continue to occur, whether facial recognition becomes a factor or not. (Pg. 9) This ignores the fact that a stalker could use their own camera to take a picture of a potential victim and then use face recognition technology to identify him or her. Think about what you could do with .
• I will end with a quote that I don鈥檛 even understand: As we face new social, political, security, and economic challenges in the 21st century, it is fitting that identity assurance, the underpinnings of individual and collective security, benefit from biometric identity technologies that reflect the uniqueness of the men, women and children living in societies we strive to create and improve upon. (Pg. 6) Somehow I don鈥檛 think this is the value of uniqueness that most Americans cherish.

This document represents just one industry view, but it鈥檚 a powerful one because these are the people who are currently making and marketing these technologies. Other industry stakeholders, like and , have taken different, more responsible positions. The question is whether they want this to be the 鈥漣ndustry position.鈥� The question for the rest of us is, if this is how the watchers want to treat us, what are we going to do about it?