EU proposes temporary ban on facial recognition, Google concurs

[Sakkura]

Recent developments in facial recognition technology have been getting quite scary, and now the EU has proposed a temporary ban on using facial recognition technology. There would be some exceptions, such as for research purposes. The temporary ban would give time to pass other legislation to better protect privacy, as well as just to see how the technology develops and gets used (or abused) in other countries. The initial proposal is for the ban to last 3-5 years.

 

Perhaps surprisingly, Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai agrees with the EU plans.

 

Quote

“I think it is important that governments and regulations tackle it sooner rather than later and give a framework for it,” Pichai told a conference in Brussels organized by think-tank Bruegel.

 

“It can be immediate but maybe there’s a waiting period before we really think about how it’s being used,” he said. “It’s up to governments to chart the course” for the use of such technology.

 

Meanwhile Microsoft, which has been under fire for its pivot to privacy-unfriendly business practices with Windows 10, strongly disagrees, not least based on the "won't someone think of the children" argument.

 

Quote

“I’m really reluctant to say let’s stop people from using technology in a way that will reunite families when it can help them do it,” Smith said.

 

“The second thing I would say is you don’t ban it if you actually believe there is a reasonable alternative that will enable us to, say, address this problem with a scalpel instead of a meat cleaver,” he said.

 

Smith said it was important to first identify problems and then craft rules to ensure that the technology would not be used for mass surveillance.

 

“There is only one way at the end of the day to make technology better and that is to use it,” he said.

 

The industry reactions follow a recent leak of a draft white paper from the new EU Commission that recently took office. The white paper also deals more generally with regulation of AI technology.

 

Quote

Building on Europe's existing tough privacy laws, a "future regulatory framework could go further and include a time-limited ban on the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces," states an 18-page draft for a "white paper" that Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager is expected to present to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other commissioners during a meeting in mid-February. According to an official directly involved, the document was created before the nomination of Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton.

 

"This would mean that the use of facial recognition technology by private or public actors in public spaces would be prohibited for a definite period (e.g. 3-5 years) during which a sound methodology for assessing the impacts of this technology and possible risk management measures could be identified and developed," the document adds.

 

Google's attitude to the wider topic of regulation of AI is more cautious, reflecting their involvement in the area. But their more positive response to the proposed temporary ban on facial recognition is matched by its refusal to offer general-purpose facial-recognition API access, at least while it establishes its own guidelines and safeguards.

 

I think these comments show that the EU is on the right track. It would be very premature to permanently ban facial recognition technology, but the rapid development makes a cautious approach prudent. It's a lot harder to deal with once the genie is out of the bottle. But much will depend on how the industry, member states, and NGOs react to the plans.

 

Sources:

Reuters

Politico

[WereCatf]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The temporary ban would give time to pass other legislation to better protect privacy, as well as just to see how the technology develops and gets used (or abused) in other countries

I like this. A temporary ban is much easier to lift as needed than a hastily-written legislation, that might contain all sorts of silly loopholes or unintended effects. I mean...their track-record on writing well-thought-out and well-written legislation isn't exactly impressive.. *cough* Obviously, the primary reason I like this news is the ban on facial-recognition, but the temporary ban in and of itself is also good news.

[Bananasplit_00]

I think this is a great idea. I don't think the ban is long enough at three to five years though

[WereCatf]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

I think this is a great idea. I don't think the ban is long enough at three to five years though

It's a temporary ban. They'll write the proper legislation during the temporary ban.

[Ashleyyyy]

hold up. would that include facial recognition on phones? because if so apple is in trouble there. 

[Kisai]

3 minutes ago, Twilight said:

hold up. would that include facial recognition on phones? because if so apple is in trouble there. 

It'll probably not apply to closed-loop devices since that would effectively ban any biometrics. In the case of the phone, or smartTV or anything like that, as long as it's not connecting to the "cloud" to verify the face it should be above board.

 

What is concerning however is that we might be shooting the messenger. 

 

As I mentioned in the thread linked in the first post of this thread, facial recognition should only be at the municipal level, nothing higher, to prevent going on fishing expeditions. If you open it up to cross-jurisdictions, then you could get into a circular loop of people in one jurisdiction spying on those in the other jurisdiction because they're paranoid they themselves are being spied on. 

 

Anyone who initiates a facial recognition search, should be authenticated to be within the same legal jurisdiction (eg city level) and only to identify victims and perpetrators, not witnesses. No fishing expeditions looking for low-hanging fruit to arrest.

 

If someone has a criminal record that involves a weapons offence, violent offender, or sexual offender, the police want to know where you are and if you're violating the terms of probation, and that's actually a good use of the tech, albeit kinda scary. If a crime goes down, and the cameras spotted you in that place, there is a very good possibility of one person being mis-identified as the perpetrator or victim, which is also why AI should not be driving this alone. The AI should be receiving multiple inputs from humans as to what they believe to be true about an investigation and acting as a buffer between the law enforcement or first responders and everyone else.

[RejZoR]

I find it incredibly suspicious when creepy companies like Google agree with such regulations. Can't help to think what's the catch here...

[Feranoks]

It might be good to get ahead of technology for a change. Start creating legislation and laws before it becomes a big part of our daily lives. This could be an important "hold on" before things start getting creepy.

[LeSheen]

1 hour ago, Twilight said:

hold up. would that include facial recognition on phones? because if so apple is in trouble there. 

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

There would be some exceptions, such as for research purposes.

I think this is would be an obvious example of the mentioned exceptions. 

 

[Bananasplit_00]

1 hour ago, WereCatf said:

It's a temporary ban. They'll write the proper legislation during the temporary ban.

Well yah. I just feel they should have more time to do so.

[RedRound2]

Surprised google's backing this given how facial recognition is part of one of Google Photos's main feature

[Arika]

3 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Surprised google's backing this given how facial recognition is part of one of Google Photos's main feature

"we'll support it so it's easier to get an exception" 

[Doobeedoo]

This will be fun to see over the years, really in future I see there will be many of these things to spy on people but yeah. 

[thechinchinsong]

It's nice to see that there are government bodies out there that can make sensible decisions about technology and legislation.

[RejZoR]

6 hours ago, Twilight said:

hold up. would that include facial recognition on phones? because if so apple is in trouble there. 

Why would Apple be in trouble? FaceID is a local feature. It's done on a phone and data is not sent anywhere. Google says the same for their radar face unlock thingie, but given it's Google, I'd be easier believing a thief than them...

[Bombastinator]

I am not at all surprised google concurs. For now.

 

A tiny little startup stole a march on them.  If google buys said startup and then STILL concurs then I will be surprised.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I am not at all surprised google concurs. For now.

 

A tiny little startup stole a march on them.  If google buys said startup and then STILL concurs then I will be surprised.

I think they want this so they can beef up their offerings and internal systems because they have the means and capacities to do it on their own. Startups probably had to rely on public access which then helps Google if they go with the ban. And I think that's exactly why they like it. And for a some PR points tho they aren't fooling me. Still ain't gonna touch anything Google...