PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Artificial intelligence, once the stuff of science fiction, has become all to real in our modern society - especially in the American criminal justice system (and beyond); As the ACLU's Lee Rowland puts it: "Today, artificial intelligence. It's everywhere — in our homes, in our cars, our offices, and of course online. So maybe it should come as no surprise that government decisions are also being outsourced to computer code. In one Pennsylvania county, for example, child and family services uses digital tools to assess the likelihood that a child is at risk of abuse. Los Angeles contracts with the data giant Palantir to engage in predictive policing, in which algorithms identify residents who might commit future crimes. Local police departments are buying Amazon's facial recognition tool, which can automatically identify people as they go about their lives in public." The algorithm is finding its place deeper and deeper in the nation's courtrooms on what used to be exclusive decisions of judges such as bail and even the sentence to be imposed. I am pleased to see that a dialogue has begun on the effect that increasing use of these logarithms in our criminal justice systems is having on our society and on the quality of decision-making inside courtrooms. As Lee Rowland asks about this brave new world, "What does all this mean for our civil liberties and how do we exercise oversight of an algorithm?" In view of the importance of these issues - and the increasing use of artificial intelligence by countries for surveillance of their citizens - it's time for yet another technology series on The Charles Smith Blog focusing on the impact of science on society and criminal justice. Up to now I have been identifying the appearance of these technologies. Now at last I can report on the realization that some of them may be two-edged swords - and on growing pushback.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog:
------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Baroness Jones, a member of the House of Lords, claims that a photo of her was held on the Met’s “domestic extremism” database and her political activities were monitored when she sat on an official committee scrutinising the Met. Baroness Jones said the police left her “no choice” but to bring this legal challenge. “This new form of surveillance lacks a legal basis, tramples over civil liberties, and it hasn’t been properly debated in parliament. "The idea that citizens should all become walking ID cards is really the antithesis to democratic freedom. Facial recognition surveillance is likely to impact on my political work, whether I’m trying to meet whistleblowers in the city or attending protests and meeting campaigners where it is being used."
STORY: " Police use of ‘Orwellian’ facial recognition cameras in legal challenge," by reporter Natasha Bernal. published by The Telegraph on July 25, 2108.
PHOTO CAPTION: "The use of 'Orwellian' facial recognition technology under the guidance of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick is facing a legal challenge."
GIST: "The use of 'Orwellian' facial recognition cameras by the British police is to be challenged in the courts for breaching human rights. Facial recognition technology works by scanning images recorded by a surveillance camera and matching them to a database of criminals in real time. It is being piloted by police forces in London, Humberside, South Wales and Leicestershire. Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch claims the technology is inaccurate and breaches the rights of individuals under the Human Rights Act. The Metropolitan Police, however, insists it increases the safety of citizens. The Met recently targeted Westfield shopping centre with the surveillance cameras following previous controversial deployments at the Notting Hill Carnival and Remembrance Sunday last year. No arrests were made at Westfield, but officers were spotted rushing to stop and search a young black man following the software mistakenly identified him for someone else, Big Brother Watch claims. The charity is working alongside Baroness Jenny Jones, who said she had been targeted by the police’s facial recognition technology, to bring a legal challenge against the Home Secretary Sajid Javid and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick. Baroness Jones, a member of the House of Lords, claims that a photo of her was held on the Met’s “domestic extremism” database and her political activities were monitored when she sat on an official committee scrutinising the Met. Baroness Jones said the police left her “no choice” but to bring this legal challenge. “This new form of surveillance lacks a legal basis, tramples over civil liberties, and it hasn’t been properly debated in parliament. "The idea that citizens should all become walking ID cards is really the antithesis to democratic freedom. Facial recognition surveillance is likely to impact on my political work, whether I’m trying to meet whistleblowers in the city or attending protests and meeting campaigners where it is being used.The group received over £5,000 in crowdfunding to raise money for the legal challenge earlier this month. Big Brother Watch obtained police figures in May revealing that 98% of the Met’s facial recognition “matches” wrongly identified innocent people. Its investigation revealed that even when innocent people are wrongly “matched” the police store biometric photos of the individuals for up to a year without their knowledge. Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo said that facial recognition subjects the public to a “constant police lineup” without consent. “Facial recognition cameras are not only authoritarian, they’re dangerously inaccurate. The use of this technology by the police risks taking us down a slippery slope towards an Orwellian society,” Ms Carlo said.It is the public’s support that has allowed us to bring this legal challenge. We’re hoping the court will intervene, so the lawless use of facial recognition can be stopped. It is crucial our public freedoms are protected.” Earlier this year, the group and Baroness Jones threatened legal action if the police did not end their use of facial recognition cameras, saying that this is a “clear breach of privacy rights and freedom of expression in the UK”. Rosa Curling, a solicitor at Leigh Day representing the group, said: “The Home Secretary has failed to show that the use of AFR is either proportionate or necessary in our democratic society. “Our clients hope the issuing of proceedings will result in an immediate halt of its use by the police and reconsideration by both the police and Home Office as to whether it is suitable to use in the future.” Facial recognition is not yet widely used in the UK, but the tech has been trialed at the Notting Hill Carnival for two years, and police expect to start using it at British borders. Police will also have greater powers to use biometric technology, which can identify people's body measurements. Its use follows success using smartphones to match people to the current face image database, which is made up of 12.5m photos.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTO CAPTION: "The use of 'Orwellian' facial recognition technology under the guidance of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick is facing a legal challenge."
GIST: "The use of 'Orwellian' facial recognition cameras by the British police is to be challenged in the courts for breaching human rights. Facial recognition technology works by scanning images recorded by a surveillance camera and matching them to a database of criminals in real time. It is being piloted by police forces in London, Humberside, South Wales and Leicestershire. Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch claims the technology is inaccurate and breaches the rights of individuals under the Human Rights Act. The Metropolitan Police, however, insists it increases the safety of citizens. The Met recently targeted Westfield shopping centre with the surveillance cameras following previous controversial deployments at the Notting Hill Carnival and Remembrance Sunday last year. No arrests were made at Westfield, but officers were spotted rushing to stop and search a young black man following the software mistakenly identified him for someone else, Big Brother Watch claims. The charity is working alongside Baroness Jenny Jones, who said she had been targeted by the police’s facial recognition technology, to bring a legal challenge against the Home Secretary Sajid Javid and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick. Baroness Jones, a member of the House of Lords, claims that a photo of her was held on the Met’s “domestic extremism” database and her political activities were monitored when she sat on an official committee scrutinising the Met. Baroness Jones said the police left her “no choice” but to bring this legal challenge. “This new form of surveillance lacks a legal basis, tramples over civil liberties, and it hasn’t been properly debated in parliament. "The idea that citizens should all become walking ID cards is really the antithesis to democratic freedom. Facial recognition surveillance is likely to impact on my political work, whether I’m trying to meet whistleblowers in the city or attending protests and meeting campaigners where it is being used.The group received over £5,000 in crowdfunding to raise money for the legal challenge earlier this month. Big Brother Watch obtained police figures in May revealing that 98% of the Met’s facial recognition “matches” wrongly identified innocent people. Its investigation revealed that even when innocent people are wrongly “matched” the police store biometric photos of the individuals for up to a year without their knowledge. Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo said that facial recognition subjects the public to a “constant police lineup” without consent. “Facial recognition cameras are not only authoritarian, they’re dangerously inaccurate. The use of this technology by the police risks taking us down a slippery slope towards an Orwellian society,” Ms Carlo said.It is the public’s support that has allowed us to bring this legal challenge. We’re hoping the court will intervene, so the lawless use of facial recognition can be stopped. It is crucial our public freedoms are protected.” Earlier this year, the group and Baroness Jones threatened legal action if the police did not end their use of facial recognition cameras, saying that this is a “clear breach of privacy rights and freedom of expression in the UK”. Rosa Curling, a solicitor at Leigh Day representing the group, said: “The Home Secretary has failed to show that the use of AFR is either proportionate or necessary in our democratic society. “Our clients hope the issuing of proceedings will result in an immediate halt of its use by the police and reconsideration by both the police and Home Office as to whether it is suitable to use in the future.” Facial recognition is not yet widely used in the UK, but the tech has been trialed at the Notting Hill Carnival for two years, and police expect to start using it at British borders. Police will also have greater powers to use biometric technology, which can identify people's body measurements. Its use follows success using smartphones to match people to the current face image database, which is made up of 12.5m photos.
The Metropolitan Police and the Mayor of London's office were approached for comment."
- The entire story can be read at the link below:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
