upcomingtechnologies

[upcomingtechnologies]

Facial recognition: the path to better policing or a policed state?

In April 2017, a man was arrested for shoplifting beer from a CVS in New York City. Although the surveillance cameras within the CVS captured the criminal in the act, the images were too blurry to be used for facial recognition purposes. However, realising the perpetrator shared an uncanny resemblance with the actor Woody Harrelson, a detective from the Facial Identification Section decided to run a photo of the celebrity through the facial recognition algorithm, which led to the identification and eventual capture of the thief. This isn’t the first or only time that police officers have used creative and slightly controversial methods to identify criminals using facial recognition technology. However, facial recognition systems were not designed to be used in this way, and incidents such as these have caused questions to be asked about whether governmental agencies should have access to this technology, especially when there are no strict rules about its use.

Over the summer, it emerged that the ICE and FBI had been using driver's license photos from DMV databases for facial recognition searches: essentially making anyone who had a drivers license unknowingly part of a perpetual police lineup. One report estimates that in the USA some 117 million people’s faces are currently in facial recognition networks that are used by law enforcement agencies. This is obviously a privacy violation of a massive scale: although police have been finding criminals through their biometric data for decades through the use of DNA or fingerprint matching, facial recognition is one of the few biometric techniques that does not require the consent of the subject or a court-ordered warrant. This begs the question: how many of these 117 million people are aware that their faces are being used in this way? On the whole, governments and agencies have been extremely secretive about how they are using this technology, and this lack of transparency has prompted fears about the degree to which this technology is permeating our daily lives today, and where it might end up in the future.  

AN ORWELLIAN DYSTOPIA?

It is not hard to imagine a worst-case scenario in which the use and abuse of facial recognition technology mirrors scenes from George Orwell’s 1984. And in some parts of the world, this is becoming closer to being a reality. China is currently the world leader in the use of facial recognition software. There, the technology is being implemented into the surveillance systems to allow the government to track and monitor citizens in unprecedented ways. One of the most talked-about ways in which this is happening is in the country’s social credit system, which uses information obtained from surveillance cameras to determine citizens’ credit ratings. The information that is considered includes behaviours such as traffic violations, jaywalking or taking reserved seats on public transport; if a citizen’s actions are judged unfavourably it can lead to them losing certain rights: from not being able to purchase plane tickets to preventing people from buying premium health insurance. Although the system is still being planned it is easy to imagine how dangerous its implementation could be- one only has to watch the Blackmirror episode Nosedive to understand the extent to which social rating systems could violate all human rights and void any sense of autonomy.

Other uses of facial recognition in China that show just how deeply this technology has permeated daily life include: restrooms using the technology to limit how much toilet paper is dispensed, schools installing facial recognition cameras to track which students are paying attention, and police officers trialling body cameras and glasses enhanced with this technology that will allows real-time identification of criminals. While this mass surveillance promises the possibility of a safer, faster world, what is worrying is that as this technology develops, so does the potential for its misuse. In China, the omnipresence of the surveillance technology means that citizens cannot do anything the government dislikes, creating an Orwellian state of totalitarianism in which the government can track people in physical space, going about their daily lives. Providing the government with such power is incompatible with a healthy democracy, and reduces life into a panopticon.  

  ALGORITHMIC GOVERNANCE?

Essentially, the broad use and implementation of this technology to monitor and control a population is a form of algorithmic governance, and justice shouldn't be put in the hands of algorithms. Although China’s use of this technology, and dystopian fictions such as 1984 provide reasons for skepticism regarding what this technology can do, equally frightening is what it can’t do well enough. It has already been demonstrated that the facial recognition software used in the USA has varying degrees of effectiveness based on race and gender. The algorithms are most effective on white men, significantly less accurate for women and people of colour, and completely exclude people of different gender expressions. This makes it more likely for women and non-white people to be unlawfully caught, exasperating the already glaring biases and inequalities in the criminal justice system. False arrests have already been made because of this technology: for example the arrest of 18-year old Ousmane Bah, who was dragged to jail at 4 am under accusations of stealing from several Apple Stores. Although he was released, being forced to respond to these false allegations, which were made because of algorithmic misidentification, is a violation of rights essential for a democratic society. If this technology were to be used in wearable tech by police officers in situations where racial bias already exists, it could confirm presumptions of guilt even when unproven, leading to an overuse of this technology on the exact segments of the population on which it underperforms. Furthermore, even if regulations are put in place that only allow facial recognition algorithms to be used in conjunction with other forms of policing, they can still cause confirmation bias in the deputies minds, making it harder to stay completely objective and investigate other possible suspects.

It is easy to allow the convenience that this technology offers to blind us from the risk inherent in its use, and we need to realise the extent of what we are giving up in exchange for this convenience. If this use of this technology is to be continued then strict rules and regulations must be put in place to ensure it is used fairly and justly and doesn't set us on a trajectory to becoming an overly-policed state. It is my opinion that facial surveillance, which enables citizens movements and behaviours to be tracked and monitored using facial identification software, should not be allowed. It presents a form of surveillance which is anathema to the health of a democratic society. On the other hand, facial identification, which allows law enforcement to use this technology to try and identify a known criminal, should not be outright banned as policing in the 21st century should involve using 21st-century technologies. However, the use of Facial Identification should only be carried out under strict rules and regulations, and a moratorium should be put in place at least until the gender and racial biases in the algorithms are resolved. On top of this, there should be strict guidelines for when law enforcement can use this technology, limiting it to only the most serious crimes, and a warrant ought to be obtained before police can scan facial databases.

Although this technology can be incredibly useful for protecting the public, it is also an extraordinarily powerful tool and a pervasive form of surveillance for which controls need to be put in place now before we move any closer in the direction of becoming an overly oppressive surveillance state.

[upcomingtechnologies]

Libra: a powerful democratising force or a dangerous form of surveillance?

In June 2019, Facebook revealed its plans to create and launch Libra, a global cryptocurrency, and an underlying blockchain-based network that will act as the financial infrastructure to support it. Facebook’s ambitions for this technology were vast, promising the new currency could potentially enable some of the 1.7 billion unbanked people around the world to hold their money for free and make instant money transfers globally. Facebook pitched Libra as a democratising social force, which, similarly to how social media technology revolutionised the way we communicate with each other, could revolutionise financial services and global banking systems, bringing cryptocurrencies to millions of people who might be unable to access a banking service. When Facebook announced Libra, the cryptocurrency came across as a powerful new tool that could help tackle inequality and end financial exclusion. However since the announcement, Libra has become controversial, with some regulators and government officials calling for the project to be halted altogether. So what is this controversy all about? Why, when Facebook claims that Libra has the potential to provide financial services to millions of unbanked people, are so many people calling for the experiment to be ended before it has even been started? And are we right to be wary of Facebook venturing from the world of social media to the world of finance?

The Power of the Libra Association

Although Libra is being built by Facebook, when the cryptocurrency was announced it was only presented as a rough draft. All the real details and planning were to be done between all the companies involved in the project as part of the Libra Association, a non-profit organisation which was formed to help oversee and govern Libra as it evolved. However, this lack of detail made it hard for Facebook to explain how Libra would tackle some of the regulatory concerns that were raised shortly after the cryptocurrencies announcement. The Libra Association was originally made up of 28 members, which included venture capital, blockchain, technology, and telecommunications firms. Some of the names in this association included Mastercard, Visa, Uber, eBay and Andreessen Horowitz. This original list promised unprecedented cooperation between some of the biggest names in payments and technology, which could potentially give Libra a powerful head start. eBay and Uber, for example, would be able to use their association with Libra to encourage millions of people to pay for their online transactions using the cryptocurrency. On the other hand, Visa and Mastercard, the world’s two largest payment processing companies, could ensure that Libra is accepted for both online and offline purchases. On top of this, Facebook could leverage its enormous database through Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram to provide frictionless payment options for all of its users. With Facebook’s parallel ambition to integrate its digital wallet, Calibra, which would be integrated with all other Facebook products, billions of users would potentially be able to access the cryptocurrency.

So, what is the problem?

In theory, given the power and influence of the members of the Libra Association, the cryptocurrency could generate a huge reach and be a viable alternative currency globally. However, scepticisms surrounding Libra and sustained political pressure by central banks and financial regulators have caused almost a quarter of the original members of the Libra Association to abandon the project. In just the past week, five of the Libra Association’s biggest players: Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, eBay and Mercado Pago, announced that they would be backing out of the project. Governments and regulatory agencies worldwide reacted to Libra more with fear than excitement, and raised  important questions about the future of global banking and Facebook’s role in it.  Pressure placed on the larger payments companies involved in the Libra Association with letters written to Visa and Mastercard by Democratic senators and members of the Senate Banking Committee, warning that if the companies took the Libra project on, they “can expect a high level of scrutiny from regulators not only on Libra-related payment activities but on all payment activities.”. On top of concerns that the cryptocurrency may pose a threat to global financial systems, regulators were also worried that Libra could become a “dark money” network, which would enable money laundering and increase financing for terrorism.

Facebook’s Reputation

The departure of these companies has created further problems for Libra. The initial participation by these well established, trusted institutions lent the project credibility. However, at a time when Facebook is facing privacy scandals and antitrust regulations, now the project has become more linked to it than ever before. Facebook is already a huge and extremely powerful company, and it is chilling to think of such a large data conglomerate creating a private global currency. Given Facebook’s track record, the decision as to whether or not Facebook should be allowed to undertake this responsibility and power is an extremely important one. Facebook has over 1.5 billion daily active users and 2.3 monthly active users. The world’s population reached 7.7 billion in 2019, meaning a population just under ⅓ the size of the world uses Facebook every month. Facebook’s influence is vast. If it were to use this influence to promote its currency, there is no way of knowing how far-reaching the consequences could be. We think of currencies as an important public good, which should be managed by governments and central banks operating democratically- not by private monopolies, especially ones that have in the past seen personal data as something to exploit rather than to protect. Creating a global currency could make Facebook inextricable from users lives, and tie this company into banking infrastructure. On top of this, since this cryptocurrency would go beyond national regulatory borders, there are no clear answers about how national governments might control or regulate it.

In just the past year Facebook has been involved in several data privacy violations. Facebook offers its users a free service, but to power this service it gathers their data to sell hyper-targeted advertisements. This is how the company makes around 89% of all of its profits- data gathering is crucial to its success.  Although Facebook claims that it won’t gather personal data gained from Libra transactions, just a short search reveals that instances in which data from Facebook has been harvested and users’ personal information exploited without their prior consent. It is therefore not impossible, and if anything quite likely, that Facebook will find a way to use Libra to gather unparalleled information about customer purchasing habits, exponentially increasing the company’s monopolistic power and potentially creating what critics have called “the most invasive and dangerous form of surveillance ever designed”.

Facebook’s approach to regulatory breaches is reflected in the way the company chose to announce the Libra project: acting first and dealing with any repercussions afterwards. After all, for a company with as much power as Facebook, there are few fines big enough or punishments strong enough to cause the company any significant losses. This is what is particularly concerning about the Libra project. Especially in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it is hard to not worry about how these huge companies are influencing and manipulating their users without their knowledge. Privatising the world’s money challenges and threatens both competition policies and antitrust practices. Although it is impossible to deny that serious steps should be taken to provide financial services to those who are unable to access the traditional banking system, this should be done by a public body, not a group of billion-dollar companies otherwise called the Libra Association.