Wired just reported that Uber Eats drivers in the UK are being fired because of the company’s faulty facial identification software. Uber requires drivers to submit selfies to confirm their identity, but when the technology fails, and isn’t able to match photos of the drivers with their accounts, drivers get booted off the system and are unable to work, and thus unable to pay their bills. This isn’t the first time this has happened — in 2019 a Black Uber driver in the US sued the company for its discriminatory facial recognition.
This case clearly shows how private use of facial recognition, by institutions and even individuals, poses just as much of a threat to the future of human civilization as government use. And it’s one of countless examples of how this technology automates and exacerbates existing power imbalances to control, target, and discriminate.
Workplaces are using facial recognition in recruitment, to replace traditional timecards, and to monitor workers’ movements and “productivity.” Retailers and restaurants can use it to harvest data on our purchases and then target us with specific messaging and products, making decisions about what options are presented to people.
It’s widely known that most facial recognition algorithms exhibit systemic racial and gender bias. This is causing real harm that must be addressed now. But at the same time, we have to worry about the future when the tech improves, but the bias inherent in the systems in which they are being used persists. In the same way that Black and brown communities are over-policed, companies can target certain communities with their surveillance. Even with perfectly performing algorithms, a store could use a publicly available mugshot database to ban everyone with a criminal record from the store, which would disproportionately harm Black and brown people who are over-policed.
Over the past year, the movement to ban facial recognition has gained momentum. Cities and towns have banned it; Fight for the Future led a campaign with Students for Sensible Drug Policy that’s gotten more than 60 colleges and universities to commit to not use it, and another campaign with Tom Morello and other artists that got more than 40 of the worlds largest music festivals to pledge not to use it; and federal legislation banning government and law enforcement use of the technology was introduced last year (and will be reintroduced again for the new Congress).
So far, much of the campaigning against facial recognition has focused on banning government and law enforcement use of the technology, and that makes sense. But solely focusing on government use doesn’t fully address the issue.
Some argue that we can’t ban private use of facial recognition without giving the government too much power over individual choices, and say that we should instead create a regulatory framework governing how it can and can’t be used. But these types of rules normalize and codify its use and are unjustly applied to certain groups.
Biometric surveillance is more like lead paint or nuclear weapons than firearms or alcohol. The severity and scale of harm that facial recognition technology can cause requires more than a regulatory framework. The vast majority of uses of this technology, whether by governments, private individuals, or institutions, should be banned. Facial recognition surveillance cannot be reformed or regulated, it should be abolished.
Our friends at EFF have suggested that an opt-in consent framework is enough to address the potential harms of private use of facial recognition. We disagree. While we support harm reduction legislation like the Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act (BIPA), which requires private companies to get permission to collect your biometric data before doing so, these measures are not sufficient, and specifically fail to protect the people most vulnerable to discrimination and abuse.
Policy that relies on companies gaining “informed consent” is dangerous. It puts the onus on the individual to understand the risks associated with handing over their sensitive biometric information, which may not be clear, and disproportionately harms Black, Brown, and poor communities.
This approach also assumes that people are able to opt out of situations that require facial recognition. If the only hospital in your area uses facial recognition on patients (or visitors, staff, doctors, and nurses), you might not have the opportunity to find another hospital to address your health emergency. As facial recognition is being deployed by airlines in airports, it isn’t reasonable to tell people to find other ways to travel if they don’t want to use facial scans to check in, or force people to wait in much longer lines at airports to avoid facial recognition technology. If a private school or college is using facial recognition and a student (or parent, for K-12 schools) must give consent in order to attend, or teachers, janitors, and administrators have to consent in order to work there, that isn’t actually a choice. In the Uber Eats driver case, Uber gives drivers the option for AI or human verification, but the system in place for human verification doesn’t actually work. Requiring workers to accept facial recognition as a condition for employment is not meaningful consent for someone who needs a job.
Even seemingly innocuous use cases create problems. A music festival or sporting arena using facial recognition for ticketing could offer discounts or shorter lines for those who consent. This harms people who agree without understanding the risks, who could be tracked by event organizers to see what food they bought, how often they went to the bathroom, or what artists they came to see. That data could be sold to other corporations and used for profiling or advertising, and could end up in many databases without their knowledge. This scenario also puts the people who have to pay more or wait longer to protect their privacy and biometric data at a disadvantage. Is it really “informed consent” if someone is heavily incentivized to use the option that lets a corporation collect your biometric data?
Regulations also allow the technology to be normalized, and to spread. Companies promote their facial recognition tech as convenient (and, in light of the pandemic, touch free and thus, “safe”), and we’ve seen adoption for everything from unlocking phones to checking in at the airport. These applications of convenience may make people more comfortable with the technology, embed it in our day-to-day lives, and make it harder to ban it moving forward, while still posing the same threat.
It is worth noting that legislative bans on facial recognition — including the groundbreaking Portland, OR ban on private use of facial recognition — have an exception for people accessing their private technologies like cell phones. While we generally advise people not to use biometrics to unlock their phone, and that systems should only offer this when the biometric data is being stored on device and not in the cloud, we think this exception is reasonable.
We also think there can be a reasonable exception made for research. Research like that of Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru, which helped expose the racial and gender bias built into facial recognition algorithms, should absolutely be allowed to continue. And again pointing to the Portland, OR ban on private use of facial recognition, which smartly bans use in places of public accommodation as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, this research would be allowed. We believe this research can continue without allowing the technology to be used on the public at large.
In a world where private companies are already collecting our data, analyzing it, and using it to manipulate us to make a profit, we can’t afford to naively believe that private entities can be trusted with our biometric information. A technology that is inherently unjust, that has the potential to exponentially expand and automate discrimination and human rights violations, and that contributes to an ever growing and inescapable surveillance state is too dangerous to exist. The dangers of facial recognition far outweigh any potential benefits, which is why banning both government and private use of facial recognition is the only way to keep everyone safe.
Waendeshaji wa Uber Eats nchini Uingereza wameachiliwa kazi kwa sababu ya programu ya utambulisho wa uso ya kampuni hiyo. Uber inahitaji madereva kuwasilisha selfies ili kuthibitisha utambulisho wao, lakini wakati teknolojia inashindwa, na haiwezi kulinganisha picha za madereva na akaunti zao, madereva huondolewa kwenye mfumo na hawawezi kufanya kazi, na hivyo hawawezi kulipa bili zao. Hii sio mara ya kwanza kwa Uber kufanya hivyo, lakini mwaka 2019 dereva mweusi wa Uber nchini Marekani alishtaki kampuni hiyo kwa sababu ya utambuzi wa uso. "Kesi hii inaonyesha wazi jinsi matumizi ya kibinafsi ya utambuzi wa uso, na taasisi na hata watu binafsi, inaweka tishio kubwa kwa mustakabali wa ustaarabu wa binadamu kama matumizi ya serikali. """ Na ni moja ya mifano isiyohesabika ya jinsi teknolojia hii inavyofanya moja kwa moja na kuharibu ukosefu wa usawa wa nguvu uliopo ili kudhibiti, kulenga, na kutofautisha. "Wafanyabiashara na mikahawa wanaweza kutumia utambuzi wa uso katika kuajiri, kuchukua nafasi ya kadi za kawaida za wakati, na kufuatilia harakati za wafanyakazi na uzalishaji, na kisha kututumia kwa ujumbe maalum na bidhaa, kufanya maamuzi juu ya chaguzi zinazotolewa kwa watu. """ Ni inajulikana sana kwamba wengi uso utambuzi algorithms kuonyesha mfumo wa kikabila na jinsia upendeleo. Jambo hilo linasababisha madhara halisi ambayo ni lazima yatuliwe sasa. Lakini wakati huo huo, tunapaswa kuwa na wasiwasi juu ya siku zijazo wakati teknolojia inaboresha, lakini upendeleo wa asili katika mifumo ambayo zinatumiwa unadumu. Kama vile jamii za watu weusi na weusi zinavyofichwa kupita kiasi, kampuni zinaweza kulenga jamii fulani kwa ufuatiliaji wao. Hata na algorithms kamili kufanya kazi, duka inaweza kutumia umma inapatikana mugshot database kupiga marufuku kila mtu na rekodi ya jinai kutoka duka, ambayo bila kulinganisha kuumiza watu weusi na kahawia ambao ni over-policed. Katika mwaka uliopita, harakati ya kupiga marufuku utambuzi wa uso imepata kasi. Kampeni ya Wanafunzi kwa Sera ya Dawa ya Kulevya ya Uwezo imesababisha vyuo vikuu zaidi ya 60 na vyuo vikuu kujitolea kutotumia, na kampeni nyingine na Tom Morello na wasanii wengine ambayo ilipata zaidi ya 40 ya tamasha kubwa za muziki ulimwenguni kuahidi kutotumia; na sheria ya shirikisho inayopiga marufuku matumizi ya serikali na utekelezaji wa sheria ya teknolojia ilianzishwa mwaka jana. Mpaka sasa, kampeni nyingi dhidi ya utambuzi wa uso zimezingatia kupiga marufuku serikali na utekelezaji wa sheria kutumia teknolojia hiyo, na hiyo ina maana. Lakini kuzingatia tu matumizi ya serikali haitatatua kikamilifu suala hilo. Baadhi wanasema kwamba hatuwezi kupiga marufuku matumizi ya kibinafsi ya utambuzi wa uso bila kutoa serikali nguvu nyingi juu ya chaguzi za mtu binafsi, na kusema kwamba tunapaswa badala yake kuunda mfumo wa udhibiti unaoongoza jinsi inaweza na haiwezi kutumika. Lakini aina hizi za sheria hufanya matumizi yake yawe ya kawaida na yawe ya kisheria na hutumiwa isivyo haki kwa vikundi fulani. Ufuatiliaji wa biometriki ni kama rangi ya risasi au silaha za nyuklia kuliko silaha za moto au pombe. Ukali na kiwango cha madhara ambayo teknolojia ya utambuzi wa uso inaweza kusababisha inahitaji zaidi ya mfumo wa udhibiti. Matumizi mengi ya teknolojia hii, iwe ni ya serikali, watu binafsi, au taasisi, yapaswa kupigwa marufuku. Ufuatiliaji wa utambuzi wa uso hauwezi kurekebishwa au kudhibitiwa, inapaswa kuondolewa. "Wanafunzi wa EFF wanasema kuwa ""mfumo wa idhini ya kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga na mfumo wa kujiunga.""" Hatukubaliani. "Wakati tunaunga mkono sheria za kupunguza madhara kama vile Sheria ya Illinois ya Ulinzi wa Habari za Biometriki (BIPA), ambayo inahitaji makampuni ya kibinafsi kupata ruhusa ya kukusanya data yako ya biometriki kabla ya kufanya hivyo, hatua hizi hazitoshi, na haswa kushindwa kulinda watu walio hatarini zaidi kwa ubaguzi na unyanyasaji. """ Sera ambayo hutegemea makampuni kupata "kikubaliano cha habari" ni hatari. "Hii inaweka mzigo juu ya mtu binafsi kuelewa hatari zinazohusiana na kupeana habari zao za biometriki nyeti, ambazo zinaweza kuwa wazi, na kwa kiasi kikubwa huumiza jamii nyeusi, kahawia na maskini. """ Njia hii pia inachukua kwamba watu ni uwezo wa kuchagua nje ya hali ambayo inahitaji utambuzi wa uso. Ikiwa hospitali pekee katika eneo lako hutumia utambuzi wa uso kwa wagonjwa (au wageni, wafanyakazi, madaktari, na wauguzi), huenda usiwe na fursa ya kupata hospitali nyingine kushughulikia dharura yako ya afya. "Kwa kuwa utambuzi wa uso unaendeshwa na mashirika ya ndege katika viwanja vya ndege, sio busara kuwaambia watu kupata njia zingine za kusafiri ikiwa hawataki kutumia skani za uso kuangalia ndani, au kulazimisha watu kusubiri katika foleni ndefu zaidi katika viwanja vya ndege ili kuepuka teknolojia ya utambuzi wa uso. """ Ikiwa shule binafsi au chuo kikuu inatumia utambuzi wa uso na mwanafunzi (au mzazi, kwa shule za K-12) lazima atoe idhini ili kuhudhuria, au walimu, walinzi, na wasimamizi lazima wakubali ili kufanya kazi huko, hiyo sio chaguo. Katika kesi ya dereva wa Uber Eats, Uber huwapa madereva chaguo la uthibitisho wa AI au binadamu, lakini mfumo uliopo kwa uthibitisho wa binadamu haufanyi kazi kweli. """Kulazimisha wafanyakazi kukubali utambuzi wa uso kama sharti la ajira sio idhini ya maana kwa mtu anayehitaji kazi." Hata visa vya matumizi yanayoonekana kuwa yasiyo na madhara husababisha matatizo. Tamasha la muziki au uwanja wa michezo unaotumia utambuzi wa uso kwa tiketi inaweza kutoa punguzo au foleni fupi kwa wale wanaokubali. Hii inadhuru watu ambao wanakubali bila kuelewa hatari, ambao wanaweza kufuatiliwa na waandaaji wa hafla ili kuona ni chakula gani walichonunua, ni mara ngapi walienda bafuni, au ni wasanii gani waliokuja kuona. Takwimu hizo zinaweza kuuzwa kwa mashirika mengine na kutumiwa kwa ajili ya kutengeneza maelezo au matangazo, na zinaweza kuishia katika hifadhidata nyingi bila wao kujua. Hii pia inaweka watu ambao wanahitaji kulipa zaidi au kusubiri kwa muda mrefu kulinda faragha yao na data ya biometric katika hasara. Je, ni kweli "kikubaliano cha kuarifiwa" ikiwa mtu anachochewa sana kutumia chaguo ambalo huruhusu shirika kukusanya data yako ya biometriki? Kanuni pia kuruhusu teknolojia kuwa kawaida, na kuenea. Kampuni zinaendeleza teknolojia yao ya utambuzi wa uso kama rahisi (na, kwa kuzingatia janga hilo, bila kugusa na kwa hivyo, "salama"), na tumeona kupitishwa kwa kila kitu kutoka kufungua simu hadi kuangalia katika uwanja wa ndege. "Tumizi hizi za urahisi zinaweza kuwafanya watu wawe na raha zaidi na teknolojia, kuingiza katika maisha yetu ya kila siku, na kufanya iwe ngumu zaidi kuipiga marufuku, wakati bado ukitokeza tishio sawa. """ Ni muhimu kutambua kwamba marufuku ya kisheria juu ya utambuzi wa uso - ikiwa ni pamoja na marufuku ya Portland, OR juu ya matumizi ya kibinafsi ya utambuzi wa uso - ina ubaguzi kwa watu wanaopata teknolojia zao za kibinafsi kama simu za mkononi. "Wakati sisi kwa ujumla kushauri watu kutotumia biometrics kufungua simu yao, na kwamba mifumo inapaswa tu kutoa hii wakati data biometric ni kuhifadhiwa kwenye kifaa na si katika wingu, sisi kufikiri tofauti hii ni busara. """ Pia tunafikiri kunaweza kuwa na ubaguzi wa busara kufanywa kwa ajili ya utafiti. Utafiti kama ule wa Joy Buolamwini na Tim Nith Gebru, ambao ulisaidia kufunua upendeleo wa rangi na jinsia uliojengwa katika algorithms za utambuzi wa uso, unapaswa kuruhusiwa kuendelea. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika sheria ya Portland, Oregon, ambayo inakataza matumizi ya kibinafsi ya utambuzi wa uso, ""Utafiti huu unaruhusiwa.""" Tunaamini utafiti huu unaweza kuendelea bila kuruhusu teknolojia hiyo kutumika kwa umma kwa ujumla. Katika ulimwengu ambapo makampuni binafsi tayari kukusanya data zetu, kuchambua, na kutumia kwa manipulate sisi kupata faida, hatuwezi kumudu kuamini naively kwamba vyombo binafsi inaweza kuaminiwa na habari yetu biometric. Teknolojia ambayo ni asili ya haki, ambayo ina uwezo wa kupanua kwa kasi na automatisering ubaguzi na ukiukaji wa haki za binadamu, na ambayo inachangia kuongezeka kwa hali ya ufuatiliaji, ni hatari sana kuwepo. Hatari za utambuzi wa uso ni kubwa kuliko faida yoyote, na kwa hivyo kupiga marufuku matumizi ya serikali na binafsi ya utambuzi wa uso ni njia pekee ya kuwaweka watu wote salama.