Houston Chronicle

Microsoft urges regulation of face tech

Tech giant is first to call on Congress for such limits

- By Natasha Singer

Microsoft on Friday became the first tech giant to join a growing call for regulation­s to limit the use of facial recognitio­n technology.

In a lengthy blog post about the potential uses and abuses of facial recognitio­n, Bradford Smith, the company’s president, compared the technology to products like medicines and cars that are highly regulated, and he urged Congress to study it and oversee its use.

“We live in a nation of laws, and the government needs to play an important role in regulating facial recognitio­n technology,” Smith wrote. He added: “A world with vigorous regulation of products that are useful but potentiall­y troubling is better than a world devoid of legal standards.”

Tech giants rarely advocate regulation of their innovation­s, and Smith’s unusual entreaty illustrate­s how powerful technologi­es involving artificial intelligen­ce — including facial recognitio­n — have set off a contentiou­s battle among tech executives. These technologi­es have the potential to remake industries. They could also reduce workers’ job prospects or result in unequal opportunit­ies for consumers, leading some to argue that the products are too risky for tech companies to deploy without government oversight.

Smith’s appeal also comes as Silicon Valley is facing withering scrutiny from lawmakers and privacy experts. Several companies have been harshly criticized in recent months for their role in spreading false informatio­n during the 2016 election and exploiting users’ personal data. In response, some businesses, like Facebook, have expressed more openness to regulation of practices like political advertisin­g.

Lightning rod for critics

With many of its rivals under fire, Microsoft has aggressive­ly tried to position itself as the moral compass of the industry. Company executives have been outspoken about safeguardi­ng users’ privacy as well as warning about the potential discrimina­tory effects of using software to make important decisions like hiring.

Now that facial recognitio­n has become a new lightning rod for critics, Microsoft is taking the lead in calling for some regulatory restraint.

The powerful technology can be used to identify people in photos or video feeds without their knowledge or permission. Proponents see it as a potentiall­y important tool for identifyin­g criminals, but civil liberties experts have warned that the technology could enable mass surveillan­ce, hindering people’s ability to freely attend political protests or go about their day-today lives in anonymity.

In April, privacy groups filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission saying that Facebook had turned on new face-matching services without obtaining appropriat­e permission of users. Facebook has denied the groups’ accusation­s.

In May, the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups asked Amazon to stop selling its face-matching service, Rekognitio­n, to law enforcemen­t agencies. (The New York Times recently used Amazon’s services to help identify attendees at the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.)

In calling for government oversight of facial recognitio­n, Microsoft may be trying to get ahead of any new state efforts to tightly regulate the technology. Smith suggested that government­s around the world examine both law enforcemen­t and commercial uses of the technology.

“Should law enforcemen­t use of facial recognitio­n be subject to human oversight and controls?” he wrote. “Should the law require that companies obtain prior consent before collecting individual­s’ images for facial recognitio­n?”

EU data privacy law

In the European Union, many of these questions have already been settled.

A tough new data protection law there generally prohibits companies from collecting the biometric data needed for facial recognitio­n without first obtaining users’ consent. Illinois has similar restrictio­ns.

In his blog post, Smith said Congress should appoint a commission to study the issue and make recommenda­tions on potential regulation­s. The Federal Trade Commission has already examined facial recognitio­n, recommendi­ng in a 2012 report that certain companies “provide consumers with an easy-to-use choice not to have their biometric data collected and used for facial recognitio­n.” But Congress never took up those recommenda­tions and enacted them into law.

Civil liberties and privacy advocates said they both welcomed and felt wary of Microsoft’s push for government regulation, questionin­g how committed the company was to strong user privacy controls.

Tech companies are spreading facial recognitio­n in part because it provides a powerful way for them to connect consumers’ online and real lives.

Over the past few years, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have each filed face recognitio­n patents. Last year, Apple introduced Face ID, a service that enables iPhone X owners to unlock their phones with their face. Many Windows laptops have a similar feature.

In addition to using facial recognitio­n for its own consumer services, Microsoft — like Amazon — also sells the software to others.

Microsoft markets technology that can detect faces in photos, as well as facial features like hair color, and emotions like anger or disgust, according to the company’s site. It also sells facial recognitio­n software that “enables you to search, identify, and match faces in your private repository of up to one million people,” the site said. Uber has used the technology to verify drivers’ identities, according to Microsoft marketing materials.

Smith wrote in the blog post that Microsoft was examining its own developmen­t and marketing of the technology.

 ?? Gretchen Ertl / New York Times ?? Facial recognitio­n software, such as that used at Logan Internatio­nal Airport in Boston, has become a flashpoint for controvers­y over privacy concerns.
Gretchen Ertl / New York Times Facial recognitio­n software, such as that used at Logan Internatio­nal Airport in Boston, has become a flashpoint for controvers­y over privacy concerns.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States