June 6, 2022
The Cat Herder
| |
| June 6 · Issue #183 · View online |
|
|
Bank Holiday Edition. Facial recognition, Facebook, more facial recognition, Tim Hortons. 😼
|
|
|
How does one “usurp” a law, exactly?
|
The product would seem antithetical to the targeting tools that advertisers use Facebook for. “Their ‘basic ads’ does contrast one of the biggest attributes of Facebook’s ad platform: the granular of targeting,” the first ad buyer said. “But ads that can still deliver scale while also able to usurp data regulations like CCPA and GDPR would still get dollars invested into Facebook.”
|
Facebook is developing a privacy-safe ad product as it tries to save its advertising business
The social network is in early stages of developing a “basic ads” product that won’t rely on personal data from users.
|
|
|
A little more detail about the Irish government’s plan to give the Gardaí the ability to use facial recognition technology trickled out in a piece in the Irish Times. Gardaí will be able to “track people in real time using CCTV cameras.” How this will be done is yet again not mentioned. The Department of Justice’s insistence that this will not be used for indiscriminate surveillance is mentioned. How you can have the desired real-time tracking without the indiscriminate surveillance is not explored.
|
Gardaí will be able to use real-time facial recognition under planned legislation – The Irish Times
Law will allow for live tracking of suspects as well as retrospective analysis of CCTV records
|
|
|
A large number of legal academics and others wrote a joint letter to the Irish Times opposing the minister’s plans.
|
While the Government is attempting to create a legal basis for FRT use by amending the An Garda Síochána (Digital Recording) Bill, this seems premature, given Ireland will be subject to the provisions of the forthcoming European artificial intelligence regulatory framework. We question why the Government is rushing to legalise this very risky tech at the committee stage, thereby bypassing the usual democratic opportunities for consultation and robust debate.
|
Garda use of facial recognition technologies unnecessary and disproportionate – The Irish Times
It may have significant chilling effects, altering how people use public and online spaces
|
|
|
“The committee stage as the minister suggested is a very end game situation, it’s at the end of the legislative process, which means they would be trying to put that amendment through without the usual debates, discussions, and public reviews having taken place and that’s a misstep in terms of the democratic process, and it’s entirely inappropriate for such a risky form of tech. Even though this technology is available for policing, it doesn’t mean we should use it, and it doesn’t mean we should trust it.”
|
Facial recognition technology 'cannot be safely rolled out' in Ireland | BreakingNews.ie
The proposed Garda use of facial recognition technology would pose more risks than benefits, according to a digital policy professor
|
If you have a half hour or so to spare Liam Herrick of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties discusses the topic in more detail with Vicky Conway on the Policed podcast.
|
Policed: Facial Recognition Technology – Tortoise Shack
In this episode of Policed: The Beat Vicky speaks to Liam Herrick, Executive Director of the ICCL, about the Justice Minister’s statement this week […]
|
|
|
While we’re on the topic of facial recognition systems.
|
A class action lawsuit was filed by the plaintiffs against Google, alleging that the company broke Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. The act states that any private company collecting biometrics—defined as a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voice, or hand or face scan—must have a publicly available written policy that establishes how long the data will be kept and how it will be destroyed at the end of its life. Google Photos has a tool to group photos of similar faces together, and the app collects data on facial geometry in order to determine similarities and differences between people. The problem is that Google wasn’t informing users that it was collecting their biometric data.
|
Google Might Owe You Money for Your Face if You Live in Illinois
If you appeared in a picture on Google Photos between 2015 and 2022, you might be entitled to some money.
|
|
|
And while we’re on the topic of police forces potentially mishandling and misusing personal data.
|
Asked whether the project will “process children’s personal data for profiling or automated decision making … or for marketing purposes …”, the police reply “yes” and add: “The project is focused on reducing serious youth violence and many of those involving directly or indirectly are under the age of 18.” A full name and gang affiliation is to be recorded, it says. In its first statement to the Guardian about the document, the Met said: “The inclusion of the demographic 15-21 year[s] old was an error. As we do not ‘profile on a large scale’ we cannot provide any demographic of individuals who are involved in uploading harmful content online. We do not seek to identify personal information about those posting the videos and as such we hold limited personal data (predominantly just the videos themselves).” Asked why officers had ticked “yes” to a box asking if the project would “carry out profiling on a large scale”, the Met added: “The checking of the yes box at point 10 of this early response is incorrect.”
|
Met police profiling children ‘on a large scale’, documents show | Metropolitan police | The Guardian
Exclusive: force says Project Alpha scours social media to identify offenders and fight serious violence
|
|
|
A curious assertion from a research fellow in a lab working on a collaborative project with the Australian police: a picture of somebody’s face does not “include any identifying information”. How does that work?
|
People only need to send in their personal photographs and an email address as part of the campaign. Nina Lewis, a project lead and research fellow at the lab, confirmed it wasn’t going to log any other types of personal information. The email addresses will be stored in a separate database, we’re told. “The images and related data will not include any identifying information, ensuring that images used by researchers cannot reveal any personal information about the people who are depicted,” she said. Participants will be given updates at each stage of the project, and can ask to remove their images from the dataset if they want.
|
Police want your happy childhood pictures to train AI to detect child abuse
Like the Hotdog, Not Hotdog app but more Kidnapped, Not Kidnapped
|
|
|
The privacy commissioner of Canada and provincial authorities in Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta found that Tim Hortons “violated Canadian privacy rules by tracking its customers’ movements with its mobile app even when the app wasn’t in use”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
“But it certainly could be used that way, and Wessler, from the ACLU, says the potential for this footage to target and harm people who have abortions is exacerbated by the use of facial recognition technology. There are two possible scenarios on that front, he says: law enforcement agencies in abortion-banning states could use facial recognition databases to scan clinic footage for residents, or private groups and organizations could use the technology themselves.” From ‘Anti-abortion activists are collecting the data they’ll need for prosecutions post-Roe’ by Abby Ohlheiser for MIT Technology Review.
-
“The case provides a cautionary tale for employers in terms of relying on CCTV footage in disciplinary processes … Although further processing of personal data is not automatically unlawful, it is more likely to be so where: the further processing is not related to the original purpose; would not be expected by data subjects; could have unforeseen or negative impacts on data subjects; and no additional safeguards have been applied to ensure fair and transparent processing.” From ‘Use of CCTV in disciplinary processes: New ruling from the Court of Appeal’ by Triona Sugrue and Bernard Martin for A&L Goodbody.
-
“Even if you have never met her, interacted directly with her or read her books on corporate feminism or bereavement, Sandberg has had an impact on your life. She’s not the only reason that our data is tracked online, whether we use Meta’s products or not. Many others have helped to create and exploit an entire industry that profits from our data. What’s more, lawmakers and regulators worldwide have done little to stop this, in no small part because companies like the ones Sandberg helped run spend millions of dollars every year lobbying to prevent or water down any attempts at regulation.” From ‘Sheryl Sandberg’s influence reaches all of us. But it’s a troubling legacy’ by Stephanie Hare for The Guardian.
—
|
|
|
|
|
If you know someone who might enjoy this newsletter do please forward it on to them.
|
|
Did you enjoy this issue?
|
|
|
|
In order to unsubscribe, click here.
If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here.
|
|
|
|
Privacy Kit, Made with 💚 in Dublin, Ireland
|
|
|
Bank Holiday Edition. Facial recognition, Facebook, more facial recognition, Tim Hortons.
😼
How does one “usurp” a law, exactly?
The social network is in early stages of developing a “basic ads” product that won’t rely on personal data from users.
A little more detail about the Irish government’s plan to give the Gardaí the ability to use facial recognition technology trickled out in a piece in the Irish Times. Gardaí will be able to “track people in real time using CCTV cameras.” How this will be done is yet again not mentioned. The Department of Justice’s insistence that this will not be used for indiscriminate surveillance is mentioned. How you can have the desired real-time tracking without the indiscriminate surveillance is not explored.
Law will allow for live tracking of suspects as well as retrospective analysis of CCTV records
→ text only version
A large number of legal academics and others wrote a joint letter to the Irish Times opposing the minister’s plans.
It may have significant chilling effects, altering how people use public and online spaces
→ text only version
The proposed Garda use of facial recognition technology would pose more risks than benefits, according to a digital policy professor
If you have a half hour or so to spare Liam Herrick of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties discusses the topic in more detail with Vicky Conway on the Policed podcast.
In this episode of Policed: The Beat Vicky speaks to Liam Herrick, Executive Director of the ICCL, about the Justice Minister’s statement this week […]
While we’re on the topic of facial recognition systems.
If you appeared in a picture on Google Photos between 2015 and 2022, you might be entitled to some money.
And while we’re on the topic of police forces potentially mishandling and misusing personal data.
Exclusive: force says Project Alpha scours social media to identify offenders and fight serious violence
—
A curious assertion from a research fellow in a lab working on a collaborative project with the Australian police: a picture of somebody’s face does not “include any identifying information”. How does that work?
Like the Hotdog, Not Hotdog app but more Kidnapped, Not Kidnapped
The privacy commissioner of Canada and provincial authorities in Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta found that Tim Hortons “violated Canadian privacy rules by tracking its customers’ movements with its mobile app even when the app wasn’t in use”.
This investigation was opened in July 202 and was covered in Volume 3, Issue 25 and Volume 3, Issue 23 of this newsletter.
—
The DPC published ‘Guidance for children on their data protection rights’ a few weeks ago.
-
“But it certainly could be used that way, and Wessler, from the ACLU, says the potential for this footage to target and harm people who have abortions is exacerbated by the use of facial recognition technology. There are two possible scenarios on that front, he says: law enforcement agencies in abortion-banning states could use facial recognition databases to scan clinic footage for residents, or private groups and organizations could use the technology themselves.” From ‘Anti-abortion activists are collecting the data they’ll need for prosecutions post-Roe’ by Abby Ohlheiser for MIT Technology Review.
-
“The case provides a cautionary tale for employers in terms of relying on CCTV footage in disciplinary processes … Although further processing of personal data is not automatically unlawful, it is more likely to be so where: the further processing is not related to the original purpose; would not be expected by data subjects; could have unforeseen or negative impacts on data subjects; and no additional safeguards have been applied to ensure fair and transparent processing.” From ‘Use of CCTV in disciplinary processes: New ruling from the Court of Appeal’ by Triona Sugrue and Bernard Martin for A&L Goodbody.
-
“Even if you have never met her, interacted directly with her or read her books on corporate feminism or bereavement, Sandberg has had an impact on your life. She’s not the only reason that our data is tracked online, whether we use Meta’s products or not. Many others have helped to create and exploit an entire industry that profits from our data. What’s more, lawmakers and regulators worldwide have done little to stop this, in no small part because companies like the ones Sandberg helped run spend millions of dollars every year lobbying to prevent or water down any attempts at regulation.” From ‘Sheryl Sandberg’s influence reaches all of us. But it’s a troubling legacy’ by Stephanie Hare for The Guardian.
—
Endnotes & Credits
Find us on the web at myprivacykit.com and on Twitter at @PrivacyKit. Of course we’re not on Facebook or LinkedIn.
If you know someone who might enjoy this newsletter do please forward it on to them.
