Senator fears Clearview AI facial recognition could be used on protesters:
Sen. Edward Markey has raised concerns that police and law enforcement agencies have access to controversial facial recognition app Clearview AI in cities where people are protesting the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died two weeks ago while in the custody of Minneapolis police.
[...] "As demonstrators across the country exercise their First Amendment rights by protesting racial injustice, it is important that law enforcement does not use technological tools to stifle free speech or endanger the public," Markey said in a letter to Clearview AI CEO and co-founder Hoan Ton-That.
The threat of surveillance could also deter people from "speaking out against injustice for fear of being permanently included in law enforcement databases," he said.
Markey, who has previously hammered Clearview AI over its sales to foreign governments, use by domestic law enforcement and use in the COVID-19 pandemic, is now asking the company for a list of law enforcement agencies that have signed new contracts since May 25, 2020.
It's also being asked if search traffic on its database has increased during the past two weeks; whether it considers a law enforcement agency's "history of unlawful or discriminatory policing practices" before selling the technology to them; what process it takes to give away free trials; and whether it will prohibit its technology from being used to identify peaceful protestors.
[...] Ton-That said he will respond to the letter from Markey. "Clearview AI's technology is intended only for after-the-crime investigations, and not as a surveillance tool relating to protests or under any other circumstances," he said in an emailed statement.
Previously:
(2020-06-09) IBM Will No Longer Offer, Develop, or Research Facial Recognition Technology
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday June 11 2020, @01:37AM (1 child)
What I find fascinating is the replacement of the term "Police" with "Law Enforcement" in recent years. Once upon a time Police were there "To Serve and Protect". Now they are there to enforce laws, whether fair or not.
I think that this change in terminology has been deliberate and shows a change in thinking at the highest levels of Police forces. They are not interested in looking after the citizenry any more - they just want to enforce laws and fine/imprison/kill offenders. In Dungeons & Dragons terms, they have moved from Lawful Good to Lawful Neutral with tendencies toward Lawful Evil.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday June 11 2020, @02:27AM
Yes, indeed. Remember the term "throw the book at"? Once upon a time, typically an officer would issue one citation for a violation. Rarely, if the perpetrator is annoying, the officer might throw the book at her meaning all the acquisitions he can master. Nowadays it is always the case. They always go for the max possible penalty and "let the judge sort it out". Why? Because police is paid for the money it brings in. They are all one bunch of pigs - judges, lawyers, city and village officials and the police. Actually, police is not that bad. It behaves like death camp dogs - leaks Germans and tear apart Jews. Only roles have changed.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.