BACKGROUND: TECHNOLOGY: In the last several years I have been spending considerably more time than usual on applications of rapidly developing technology in the criminal justice process that could effect the quality of the administration of justice - for better, or, most often, for worse. First, of course, predictive policing (AKA Predpol) made it’s interest, at its most extreme promising the ability to identify a criminal act before it occurred. At it’s minimal level, it offered police a better sense of where certain crimes where occurring in the community being policed - knowledge that the seasoned beat officer had intuited through every day police work years earlier. Predpol has lost some of it’s lustre as police departments discovered that the expense of acquiring and using the technology was not justified. Then we entered a period where logarithms were become popular with judges for use on bail hearings and on sentencing, In my eyes, these judges were just passing the buck to the machine when they could have, and should have made their decisions based on information they received in open court - not from Logarithm’s which were noxious for their secrecy, because the manufacturers did not want to reveal their trade secrets - even in a courtroom where an accused person’s liberty and reputation were on the hook. of these logarithms on bail and sentence have come under attack in many jurisdictions for discriminating against minorities and are hopefully on the way out. Lastly. facial recognition technology has become a concern to this Blog because of its prove ability to sweep up huge numbers of people and lead to wrongful arrests and prosecutions. May we never forget that a huge, extremely well-funded, powerful industry, often politically connected industry is pushing for profit use of all these technologies in the criminal systems - and, hopefully, in the post George Floyd aftermath will be more concerned with the welfare of the community than their bottom Line. HL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Like other facial recognition products, Amazon's Rekognition can use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to very quickly compare a picture from, for example, an officer's phone camera and try to match it with mugshots held on police databases that can hold hundreds of thousands of photos. Facial recognition technology has been criticised for some time over potential bias, with studies showing that most algorithms are more likely to wrongly identify the faces of black people and other minorities than those of white people. In the past Amazon has defended Rekognition against charges of bias, while continuing to offer it to law enforcement agencies. The death in police custody of George Floyd, an African American man, reignited those concerns as police tactics and the use of technology for law enforcement have come under intense scrutiny."---------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Somewhat misleading headline since the story is about a moratorium - not an absolute ban. (And what about the Rain Rekognition software already in use by police organization?) However, it is a step in the right direction, so to speak.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "This week IBM also said it would stop offering its facial recognition software for "mass surveillance or racial profiling" The decisions follow growing pressure on firms to respond to the death in police custody of George Floyd. Amazon said the suspension of law enforcement use of its Rekognition software was to give US lawmakers the opportunity to enact legislation to regulate how the technology is employed. "We've advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology, and in recent days, Congress appears ready to take on this challenge," Amazon said in a statement. "
GIST: "Technology giant Amazon has banned the police from using its controversial facial recognition software for a year.
It comes after civil rights advocates raised concerns about potential racial bias in surveillance technology.
This week IBM also said it would stop offering its facial recognition software for "mass surveillance or racial profiling".
The decisions follow growing pressure on firms to respond to the death in police custody of George Floyd.
Amazon said the suspension of law enforcement use of its Rekognition software was to give US lawmakers the opportunity to enact legislation to regulate how the technology is employed.
"We've advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology, and in recent days, Congress appears ready to take on this challenge," Amazon said in a statement.
"We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules, and we stand ready to help if requested."
However, the company said that it would still allow organisations that deal with human trafficking to use the technology.
Like other facial recognition products, Amazon's Rekognition can use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to very quickly compare a picture from, for example, an officer's phone camera and try to match it with mugshots held on police databases that can hold hundreds of thousands of photos.
Facial recognition technology has been criticised for some time over potential bias, with studies showing that most algorithms are more likely to wrongly identify the faces of black people and other minorities than those of white people.
In the past Amazon has defended Rekognition against charges of bias, while continuing to offer it to law enforcement agencies.
The death in police custody of George Floyd, an African American man, reignited those concerns as police tactics and the use of technology for law enforcement have come under intense scrutiny.
Earlier this week IBM said it would no longer offer its facial recognition technology because AI systems used in law enforcement need to be tested "for bias".
In a letter to Congress, IBM chief executive Arvind Krishna said the "fight against racism is as urgent as ever", and set out three areas where the company wanted to work with Congress: police reform, responsible use of technology, and broadening skills and educational opportunities.
Calls for legislation
In recent months Congress has been weighing possible legislation of the technology as lawmakers, companies and civil liberties activists have called for stronger regulation of surveillance software.
House Democrats introduced a police reform bill on Monday that would prohibit federal law enforcement use of real-time facial recognition, but some activists said the measure didn't go far enough.
The American Civil Liberties Union said all use of facial recognition on police body camera footage should be banned, and that federal funding should be restricted for local law enforcement agencies that didn't restrict the technology's use in the same way.'
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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
