Australia’s Prime minister plays down privacy implications of automated face-matching regime under anti-terrorism deal struck with states.
In order to be legally compliant with data protection law, an employer must have a “lawful basis” or justifiable reason to process an employee’s personal data.
Artificial intelligence keeps getting creepier. In one controversial study, researchers at Stanford University have demonstrated that facial recognition technology can identify gay people with surprising precision, although many caveats apply. Imagine how that could be used in the many countries where homosexuality is a criminal offense.
Facial recognition is often discussed as a method law enforcement or private companies could use for identifying anyone from criminal suspects to loyal customers, but it can also be a powerful tool for consumers.
Wired reported that, last Tuesday, Apple unveiled a new line of phones with one feature immediately falling under scrutiny: FaceID, a tool that would use facial recognition to identify individuals and unlock their phones. So why all the anxiety?
The research has troubling implications for protestors and other dissidents, who often work to make sure they aren’t ID’d at protests and other demonstrations by covering their faces with scarves or by wearing sunglasses. “To be honest when I was trying to come up with this method, I was just trying to focus on criminals,” Amarjot Singh, one of the researchers behind the paper and a Ph.D student at Cambridge University, told me on a phone call.
Technology is rapidly catching up with the human ability to read faces. In America facial recognition is used by churches to track worshippers’ attendance; in Britain, by retailers to spot past shoplifters. This year Welsh police used it to arrest a suspect outside a football game. In China it verifies the identities of ride-hailing drivers, permits tourists to enter attractions and lets people pay for things with a smile. Apple’s new iPhone is expected to use it to unlock the homescreen.
The European Court of Human Rights decided on June 22, 2017 that France’s DNA database for convicted criminals disproportionately interferes with individuals’ privacy rights because of its one-size-fits-all retention period and the failure to include a procedure to request erasure.
The state of New York says its driver’s license facial recognition technology has led to the arrest of 4,000 people in connection to identify theft or fraud crimes. This number is likely to skyrocket in the wake of the state doubling the number of measurement points for photographs.