[ad_1]
Technology companies have a problem of confidentiality. They are very good at invading ours and terribly careless at protecting theirs.
And with the surge of technologists to map, identify and index our physical and virtual presence with biometrics such as face scanning and fingerprints, increasing digital surveillance Our physical world is making sure that some of the companies that shoot it the most benefits ask the government to provide guidance on how they can use the incredibly powerful tools that they have created.
This is what explains the call of Microsoft President Brad Smith for the government to start thinking about how to oversee the facial recognition technology that is now available to companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple and government security and surveillance services across the country and around the world.
companies were created with the aim of creating "better", more efficient and more targeted services for consumers, that they tried to solve the problem of user access by switching to Identification forms increasingly pbadive (for the user) and intrusive (by the company) – resulting in features such as the Apple Face ID and the frivolous filters that snap superimposes selfies of users. Technology and security are also used by police and security forces to put technology companies in trouble with consumers or their own staff. Amazon has been called to task for its work with the forces of order, Microsoft technologies have been used to help identify immigrants at the border (indirectly in the separation of families and the physical and virtual foreclosure of America against most forms of immigration).
Smith postulates this nightmare scenario:
"Imagine a government tracking everywhere you have walked in the last month without your permission or knowledge. Imagine a database of all those who attended a political rally that is the very essence of freedom of expression. Imagine shopping at a mall using facial recognition to share information with each other on every shelf you browse and the product you buy, without asking yourself first. This has long been the stuff of science fiction and popular movies – like "Minority Report", "Enemy of the State" and even "1984" – but now it is about to become possible. "
the indication that this is not happening already (and that Microsoft does not allow it.) All over the world, governments are currently deploying these tools to control their populations (ubiquitous surveillance status that China has badembled and that is investing billions of dollars to modernize the situation is the most obvious example.)
When business innovation and state power merge as Consumers are just beginning, leaders who have to respond to an audience of buyers are now asking the government to set up rails. "Late capitalism is weird.
But Smith's advice is prescient. need to anticipate the ravages their innovations can bring about in the world, and they may look good by not hiding their own abdication of responsibility over the issue behind that of the government [19659002] 
a democratic republic, there is no substitute for decision-making by our elected representatives on matters that require the balance of public safety with gasoline of our democratic freedoms. Facial recognition will require the public and private sectors to come forward – and act, "writes Smith.
The fact is that something must actually be done.
As Smith writes: "The more powerful the tool, the greater the benefits or the damage can be important. The last few months have highlighted computer-aided facial recognition – the ability of a computer to recognize people's faces from a photo or from a camera. This technology can catalog your photos, help reunite families or potentially be misused and abused by private companies and public authorities. "
All this takes faith that the technology works as advertised.And the problem is not currently the case."
Brian Brackeen, general manager of a start-up working on facial recognition technologies, pulled the curtains of the industry … huge secret problem.
Facial recognition technologies, used in the identification of suspects, negatively affect people of color. this fact would be a lie.
And obviously, the surveillance of the facial recognition government is an extraordinary invasion of the privacy of all citizens – and a slippery slope to completely lose control of our identities
. "Beautiful" way to recognize these things.
Smith, himself, admits that technology has a long way to go before it's perfect. But the implications of applying technology imp arfaites are vast – and in the case of law enforcement not academic. Designating an innocent bystander or civilian as a criminal suspect influences the way the police approach an individual
These cases, even if they represent only a handful, would lead me to claim that these technologies are not the same. have nothing to deploy in security situations. 19659002] 
As Smith notes himself. "Even if prejudices are addressed and face recognition systems work in a way that is fair to all, we will always face challenges with potential failures." Facial recognition, like many artificial intelligence technologies, usually has a certain rate of error, even if they operate impartially, "he writes.
Although Smith exposes the problem effectively, it is less clear on the solution He asked that a government "commission of experts" be put in place as the first step towards a possible federal regulation.
The fact that we arrived here shows how bad things are It is rare that a technology company has so naively pleaded for government intervention in one aspect of its business.
But Smith writes, "We live in a nation of law s and the government must play an important role in the regulation of facial recognition. Technology. In general, it seems more reasonable to ask an elected government to regulate businesses than to ask unelected corporations to regulate such a government. "
Given the current state of affairs in Washington, Smith may be asking for too much, which is why Smith's most interesting – and admirable – call in his post is -being that technology companies slow down their turnover
" We recognize the importance of going more slowly with respect to deployment. of the full range of facial recognition technology ", writes Smith." Many information technologies, unlike pharmaceuticals, are distributed quickly and widely to accelerate the pace of innovation and innovation. # 39; use. "Move fast and break things" became something of a mantra in Silicon Valley early this decade. But if we act too fast with facial recognition, we can see that people's basic rights are broken. "
Source link
