Blog Commenting Policy

Welcome to our website! 

We are happy you are here and look forward to reading your thoughts on our posts. We kindly ask that you refrain from hate speech, which we consider to be: racial slurs and identity offensive language (gender, sexuality, for example). Please refrain from using profanity including the use of God’s name in vain, and any curse words. If you have to think twice about a word, just don’t use it.

If you would like to post a video or picture as a comment, please keep it relevant to the post. If any of the above etiquette is ignored, your comment will not be accepted by the admins of the site. If it happens more than once, your comment will be screen-shot and shown to Professor Scott.

In addition to our policy, please abide by CSUMB’s policies as well. For all of CSUMB Policies Click HERE

Final Ethics Paper

Gabriel zapata

 

CST 373  – Ethics in Comm & Tech


Professor Scott

 

May 20, 2017

Cortana the AI

Microsoft has gotten into the industry of AI creation for public users, and have since used cortana as their ‘personality’ for the users. Cortana has been for the past few years the artificial intelligence of all microsoft devices up to this point and has been through thick and thin with Microsoft and it’s users. Cortana obviously has its benefits through data scraping, however not many may be aware of the harm it can cause through the backside of its inner workings. Going forward, Microsoft continues to implement more features, which requires a certain amount of data from users that have seen issues with this idea ethically (1). Some customers are not ok with this, as they shouldn’t be, however it may not be as bad as they think due to Microsoft’s policy. Whether this AI, Cortana, is a good idea to handle users’ data, the implementation and usage of her can be used to help out people in a way that calendars and notebooks simply cannot do and is the way of the future, but implementing and handling that data is an issue for many groups of people, privacy wise and ethically, that can be solved through compromise.

To clearly define how it can be handled, the implementation of Cortana into the work environment and lives of its users, it must be clear what the intentions are of the company with the idea of managing the data for the various features. Before that is discussed, the lines must be drawn of who exactly are invested in this type of technology, and the aspects of their reasons for being apart of it. First and foremost is the company creating this software, Microsoft. Their idea was to bring and incorporate an AI into the lives of the customers in which it brings seamless aid to the users in their everyday lives that will provide invaluable features in numerous aspects of their lives. Not only is Cortana used in phones, but across all types of devices that Microsoft has to offer which makes her even more susceptible to threats in various ways. Microsoft also manages all the data going in and out of the devices including Cortana thus making the safety of that data top priority. The other stakeholder in this case is the government agency, more specifically the NSA and other various agencies such as the CIA that seek data of the country’s citizens and even non-citizens. Their reasoning in being apart of this circle of having value in Cortana is if they are able to get their hands on the data of the users which may provide value to them in getting information about certain people, however this leaves it open to major issues including blackmail, ransoming, and even treason (2). This of course is a what if at the moment, but there is always a possibility that it may become reality based on changing laws which the decisions must be looked over carefully. Lastly, the consumer, the customer, the users, are the people who will benefit from this directly, will see and get the most out of this technology through its plethora of features, and also are at the greatest risk for damage to their lives unless the ethics and policies of it are handled properly through careful regulation and management. For this to occur though, the ethics must be clear and the wrongs must be transparent so that it is avoided.

Cortana’s main purpose is to help people as quickly and efficiently as possible while giving them the maximum amount of time to focus on other more important and tending aspects of their everyday lives (3). To do this however, Microsoft must be able to get data and information from the users in a manner that allows the AI to take over tedious tasks such as scheduling, timing, question answering, seamless interactions between applications on the device and many more nontrivial abilities (3). To do this requires an excess amount of data from the user, that the user may not even know about unless they have read the entire policy and rules of the software. What is stated within that document is a clause that the data may be stolen since nothing is foolproof safe on all of Microsoft devices, in which case, the data and information can be used against the user depending on the type of information or data (13). An example is that the thieves or possible hackers can blackmail you depending what email or message they see that can be detrimental to you in your life and you can’t do anything about it or risk getting the information leaked by the thief. This is a huge sticky situation in which the company tries its best to stop this scenario from occurring but alas not successful. This ethical issue of is it even worth it is a question still being asked by the company today and the answer is the benefits outweigh the pros significantly, especially since the data is near impossible to steal. However, the thieves and hackers are not the only entity the users should be worried about, but the government agencies like the NSA or CIA (5). This has become a relevant entity that brings fear to tech companies such as Microsoft due to them forcefully taking the data anyway they can to “apprehend” criminals off of possible leads, which can be seen as a sign of abuse of power (6). This has become a huge issue because the FBI was trying its hardest in 2015 to get Apple to unlock the phone for a terrorist’s iPhone because they had leads and evidence. The issue with this is if Apple allowed it, it would give the FBI to unlock any iPhone regardless of whose it was, criminal or not (6). This is an ethical issue on its own but I digress. The issue regarding the privacy of the users have possible solutions, though it may be difficult to figure out through all the different entities involved. In this situation there are a couple plausible solutions all with their own benefits and fallings with different ethical ideals at the foundation of them but implementing them individually may be difficult, if not impossible to an extent.

Through understanding the problem of how to approach this issue of ethics and privacy, it becomes increasingly difficult on how to go about solving this issue though there are solutions. For example, one approach that I have came up with would be to simply cut off the data and not allow Microsoft to take data from the user unless the user manually allows what data gets sent to the AI for use throughout the software (10). This gives the Rights Approach ethical framework to the solution in that it protects the ethical rights of the people affected by the cause or action, in this case privacy rights that the users deserve (11). On the flip side, another solution would be to give the company strict instructions on how to distribute the technology and require them to warn the users beforehand. This solution I believe is the most optimal in providing the ethical idea of the Utilitarianism Approach inhibiting the ability to be for the greater good for most of the people affected by the privacy issues of Cortana (12). However, for the Rights Approach solution, not allowing Microsoft to take any data from the users without their specific consent would require a lot more compared to that of the utilitarianism Approach solution.

The solution of not allowing the Company in general to take the data from the user’s of Cortana in its everyday functionality would completely hinder any entity from trying to hack into said device, rendering all privacy issues null. This is extremely simple and easy but it also means Cortana’s core functionality is also rendered null, thus making her useless which would not work in Microsoft’s model (9). A work around would be to be completely transparent at all times and allow the user to check off on all data getting sent in and out of Cortana thus giving the users full control of their data and letting them control their risks. This would allow the application of Cortana to be useful and still a viable product for users to use. The drawback, of course, is that it is much slower in performance based on the how much the user has to interact with it now and takes time away from other more pressing tasks to the users (9). Due to this issue, I believe this is simply not the best course of action thus leading me to believe that the ideal solution is unanimously the Utilitarian Approach in which the technology of Cortana maximizes the well-being of people that utilize the software providing the best solution in protecting user’s privacy with minimal possibility for intrusion.

In restricting the company and it’s developers in allowing how it handles its data is an excellent first step, which they as a company are already doing; however that’s not the only thing that must occur. In getting this solution to work without risk of data theft or hackers using people’s data for blackmail, an extra step should be implemented to have that extra layer of defense. I am talking about storing all valuable and important data  on the device itself, which would make it difficult for the intruders to see the actual data because it would not be that possible to view the data, especially without connection to that data. With this in place, the data can be safely kept away from all possible entities that could do harm to any user of Cortana (6). This idea comes with a slight negative in operation of developers however, because not only would they have to change the software, but restrict themselves in how they store data and operate Cortana’s internals. This idea is reminiscent of the ethical framework, the Utilitarian Approach in that it provides the maximum amount of maximizing the well-being of the people who use these devices. With this idea put into place, it is evident that people would be inclined to not be in risk from the obvious criminals, but there is still the law abiding ones, the government agencies who can use these types of technology, regardless of what type of security walls are put into place if they can get policies put in place allowing them access (8). However this is simply not possible because like as explained earlier, the FBI was not successful in getting access to all iPhones, only the one terrorists phone. This means that Microsoft and other device companies that sell to the public must be careful in keeping their customers data protected from these possible abuse of power government agencies. However, this is highly unlikely due to existing laws prohibiting them from doing so, as of now. With this idea, of continuing as long as data storage gets set to local, and the customers get transparent feedback from their data, this would indeed be the optimal solution and ethical approach in protecting all customer’s privacy from dangerous entities.

The usefulness of Cortana is unlimited to the users in their everyday lives and can do so much more than was possible not so long ago, but the dangers of this type of free technology can lead to very consequential situations. Though through careful thought, the different solutions become evident in approaching this difficult issue of data privacy. In protecting the greatest amount of users possible from bad entities such as hackers and agencies from getting user’s data, this solution with the foundation of Utilitarian approach is invaluable to Microsoft and it’s customers in protecting the people’s privacy.

 

(1) Jones, B. “Is Cortana a Dangerous Step towards Artificial Intelligence?” Digital Trends. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.

(2) Brandon, J. “How Microsoft Cortana will run your entire office by 2020” ComputerWorld. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

(3) Chacos, B. “Microsoft envisions a future where Cortana and a legion of smart bots act as our butlers” PC World. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

(4) Souppouris, A. “Microsoft hopes Cortana will lead an army of chatbots to victory” Engadget. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

(5) Molen, B. “Her name is Cortana. Her attitude is almost human.” Engadget. Web. 4 June. 2014.

(6) Chessen, M. “The AI Policy Landscape” A Medium Corp. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

(7) Chessen, M. “A Tale from the End of Humanity” A Medium Corp. Web. 15 Nov. 2016

(8) Dignan, L. “Can AI really be Ethical and Unbiased?” SDNet. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

(9) Singer, P. “Can Artificial Intelligence Be Ethical?” Project Syndicate. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

(10) Yudkowsky, E. “Complex Value Systems are Required to Realize Valuable Futures” Intelligence. Web. 2011.

(11) Monal, Patil. “Artificial Intelligence Vs Humans Will AI Surpass Humans” Academia. Web.

(12) Alhadeff, E. “The Smartest AI in the Universe Is More Human Than You Think” Microsoft. Web. 19 Jan. 2015.

(13)Al-Riyami, F. “The future of Cortana is intelligent, emotional, and potentially dangerous?” ONMSFT. Web. 2014.

(14) “AI Ethics and the Future of Humanity” Sparks & Honey. Web. 3 Nov. 2016

Final Research Paper

Cammron Keehley

CST 373 M/W 8-9:50 A.M.

Professor Scott

20 May 2017

 

Privacy and Facial Recognition Technology

 

Technology is improving faster and faster every day. It’s improving so fast that proper legislation is becoming increasingly difficult to catch up with the technologies growth rate. This is causing major concern because technology is starting to threaten our basic human rights and freedoms. One of the technologies that are infringing upon our rights and freedoms is called, “facial recognition technology”. Facial recognition is a computer application capable of identifying or verifying a person from a digital image or a video frame. Meaning wherever you go or whatever you do this technology will be able to know who you are, what you do, and what your taste and preferences are. Essentially this A.I will know everything there is to know about you even if you’re aware of it or not, “Face recognition technology can pick up on things like your age, gender and maybe even your mood. It could even tell whether you’re a criminal” (Revell). This may sound frightening however there is a lot of good that comes from this technology. It can be used to help marketing campaigns reach the right set of individuals, helping companies save money and operate efficiently. Facial recognition can be used to help law enforcement catch criminals more effectively and most importantly help find missing children. This technology will enhance our personal security and allow for all our belongings to only operate for us. It will also help our personal health by scanning our face and notifying us if we have an imbalance in our bodies or have a serious illness that needs attention immediately. These benefits just scratch the surface in regard to what this technology is capable of and what we can expect from it, but at what cost? The cost is simple, privacy, “concerns as government agencies and companies are more able to track individuals through their communities, and even around the world” (Cino). The question we need to consider is at what point does this technology completely infringe upon our basic human rights? We really need to look deeply into this technology and see who is involved, analyze the actions we can take to maximize privacy and still receive the benefits this technology offers, and determine a solution that fits best for our progressing society.

 

Facial recognition technology has three major stakeholders involved in making this technology operate successfully in society. The first major stakeholder is the government. The government has the ability to regulate how this technology is used and what it is used for. They are a major player in the protection of our privacy. As our government, they have the responsibility to protect our liberties and freedoms and need to hold our privacy in the highest regard. “It’s time for a U.S. lawmakers to get a handle on this. Otherwise, our faces could unlock a surveillance state more controlling than anything even George Orwell could have dreamed up.” (Roberts), this can be the horrifying reality of our nation. They need to make the citizen’s values a priority while making legislation to make facial recognition benefit all parties involved. The second major stakeholder involved are the citizen’s, us. We are what this technology is going to be used on and who it’s going to affect the most. Our rights are at stake more than ever and if we’re not careful “privacy” will become a thing of the past. “The routine unsupervised use of face recognition systems, according to the dozens of signatories, threatens the privacy and civil liberties of millions, especially those of immigrants and people of color” (Kofman). We have the responsibility to take action and fight for what is right or wrong if we want to continue having privacy we need to let that be known. The values we hold as human beings tend to fluctuate from person to person, however, we all share a common value and it is called freedom. This value that we hold so highly in America has the chance to be infringed upon by this technology if we are not careful.  The third major stakeholder is the companies that are developing and using facial recognition technology. This stakeholder has complete control about how the technology works and what it can do, good and bad. Companies have a big responsibility to uphold and need to have our personal values in consideration over just making the most money possible. Their values need to align with the people.

 

Among all the issues regarding this technology, the salient issue is privacy.  Our privacy can be infringed upon in many ways with the development of facial recognition. There is the possibility of predatory advertising by companies. For example, “there is the possibility of manipulating customers. In theory, stores could monitor the emotional state of their customers and send them tailored ads to persuade them to part with more money” (Gutowski). This form of harassment invades our privacy by attacking our desire to buy based on emotion and we then end up with a product that we really didn’t need or couldn’t realistically afford. Companies should not have the ability to sell their merchandise by invading our privacy. Another issue regarding privacy invasion is the potential abuse by governments and law enforcement. There is the possibility that the government can use this technology to spy on whoever they want to at any time. “Outside of the U.S., dictators could use this software to suppress human rights. Facial recognition apps make it easier for governments to scan crowds and melt away anonymity, matching protestors to online profiles. Last year, the Huffington Post reported this account of an Iranian blogger tortured to death for his Facebook login” (Gutowski). This example shows this type of privacy invasion is happening at this moment around the world and reminds us of the potential dangers this technology can bring.

 

Another important issue to point out regarding privacy is the potential of enhanced stalking. Facial recognition opens a new platform for stalkers to have a better idea about the person’s whereabouts and know more about the person their stalking. This is the sad and ugly truth of what this technology can be used to do. Privacy concerns also surround the possibility of increasingly invasive job interviews. The employer will know everything about you before you come in to interview, which could become problematic for many people trying to get a good paying job. The biggest problem we have regarding facial recognition software is the major delay in legislation, “It’s no surprise that legislation lags behind technology. Our toys evolve so fast, it’s not realistic to expect comprehensive laws in real time as if our legal system came with an update button” (Gutowski).  This issue raises the biggest concern and needs to be the issue that is addressed in a course of action to figure out the best way to deal with this technology and the privacy concerns that surround it.

 

There are three possible courses of action that can be taken regarding facial recognition technology. The first course of action would be to make the companies stop developing facial recognition software. This action would guarantee the safety of our privacy, while also protecting our liberties and freedoms so they would not have the possibility to become infringed upon. The strengths of stopping development of facial recognition technology would decrease the possibility of the government and law enforcement to abuse their power. We wouldn’t have to worry about being watched at all times and knowing that anyone could stock you. All privacy concerns would vanish. The weaknesses of this approach are not being able to use the technology for all the beneficial aspects that it’s intended for. We wouldn’t be able to locate criminals as efficiently or find missing children quickly. There are more negative aspects of discontinuing the development of facial recognition technology. This course of action would fall under the rights approach, “This approach stipulates that the best ethical action is that which protects the ethical rights of those who are affected by the action. It emphasizes the belief that all humans have a right to dignity” (Brown University). The rights approach is used in this in this example because by stopping the development of this software the ethical rights of those affected by the action are put first.

 

The second course of action that we could take would be to let the companies look out for their own self-interest and have them develop and use the technology however they please. This action would mean that privacy is not considered and that the companies have the ultimate say in the way facial recognition is used. The strength of this action would be that there are no rules or regulations to follow so companies could develop the technology faster. This, in turn, would help government agencies be able to use the technology for the positive benefits that facial recognition brings quicker. Companies would make more money with the targeted ads and other money saving techniques this tech brings. The stakeholder that suffers the most from this action would be the citizens. The weaknesses include no privacy for the people, chance for government abuse, and companies becoming too powerful. This action would be a dictator’s dream making this fall under the egoistic approach, “In this approach, an individual often uses utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest amount of good for him or herself” (Brown University). The egoistic approach falls perfectly under this course of action because the companies would use the utilitarian approach creating the most good for themselves without worrying about anybody else. Using this approach disregards the people and we’d most likely become a communist nation.

 

The last course of action that is a possibility is to continue to develop the facial recognition software, address the privacy concerns, and create laws to fit the rights of all stakeholders involved. By following this course of action, we can still develop the technology and use it for all the wonderful benefits that it is intended for. The other benefits of this action would be able to keep our privacy, companies not wasting any extra money on marketing, and the government able to run more efficiently. Weaknesses to this course of action would be slower development of facial recognition software due to companies having to abide by new privacy laws and regulations. The ethical framework that this action represents it the utilitarian approach, “This conforms to our feeling that some good and some bad will necessarily be the result of our action and that the best action will be that which provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm” (Brown University). In this case, the utilitarian approach would create the most good and does the least harm to society. People would still have the privacy that they are entitled to and still have all the amazing benefits that this technology will bring to the world.

The course of action that I choose was the third action, the utilitarian approach. I choose this action because it creates the most good and the least bad for all stakeholders involved. This technology is inevitably coming into our lives whether we like it or not. So, by choosing the utilitarian approach we can focus on laws that help protect our privacy and still be able to use the technology for the intended purposes. I believe that if we make the ways to abuse facial recognition known beforehand we can eliminate any chance of it happening, “It’s important to understand the scale of change that is under way because it is going to dictate what happens. Knowing about facial recognition, and how it is used by both governments and companies, is key to helping us face the future” (Dormehl).  We can create legislation to ensure the protection of our privacy. We’ll be able to use this technology to fight crime and stop criminals before they have the chance to commit a crime. This technology will better businesses and consumers by, “allowing businesses to customize their service and products as well as their advertising. And it’s certainly beneficial to the customer because they don’t have to waste time essentially relaying that information” (Iowa State University). Shopping for merchandise will be easier than ever and customized to what you want. Facial recognition will even help people with various addictions by knowing when a certain habit is becoming a problem. This technology will be the best thing that ever happened to mankind.

 

Work Cited

 

 

What Approach Works Best? #13

The course of action that I choose was the third action, the utilitarian approach. I choose this action because it creates the most good and the least bad for all stakeholders involved. This technology is inevitably coming into our lives whether we like it or not. So, by choosing the utilitarian approach we can focus on laws that help protect our privacy and still be able to use the technology for the intended purposes. I believe that if we make the ways to abuse facial recognition known beforehand we can eliminate any chance of it happening, “It’s important to understand the scale of change that is under way because it is going to dictate what happens.

Knowing about facial recognition, and how it is used by both governments and companies, is key to helping us face the future” (Dormehl).  We can create legislation to ensure the protection of our privacy. We’ll be able to use this technology to fight crime and stop criminals before they have the chance to commit a crime. This technology will better businesses and consumers by, “allowing businesses to customize their service and products as well as their advertising. And it’s certainly beneficial to the customer because they don’t have to waste time essentially relaying that information” (Iowa State University). Shopping for merchandise will be easier than ever and customized to what you want. Facial recognition will even help people with various addictions by knowing when a certain habit is becoming a problem. This technology will be the best thing that ever happened to mankind.

Possible Frameworks FRT #12

There are three possible courses of action that can be taken regarding facial recognition technology. The first course of action would be to make the companies stop developing facial recognition software. This action would guarantee the safety of our privacy, while also protecting our liberties and freedoms so they would not have the possibility to become infringed upon. The strengths of stopping development of facial recognition technology would decrease the possibility of the government and law enforcement to abuse their power. We wouldn’t have to worry about being watched at all times and knowing that anyone could stock you. All privacy concerns would vanish. The weaknesses of this approach are not being able to use the technology for all the beneficial aspects that it’s intended for. We wouldn’t be able to locate criminals as efficiently or find missing children quickly. There are more negative aspects of discontinuing the development of facial recognition technology. This course of action would fall under the rights approach, “This approach stipulates that the best ethical action is that which protects the ethical rights of those who are affected by the action. It emphasizes the belief that all humans have a right to dignity” (Brown University). The rights approach is used in this in this example because by stopping the development of this software the ethical rights of those affected by the action are put first.The second course of action that we could take would be to let the companies look out for their own self-interest and have them develop and use the technology however they please. This action would mean that privacy is not considered and that the companies have the ultimate say in the way facial recognition is used. The strength of this action would be that there are no rules or regulations to follow so companies could develop the technology faster. This, in turn, would help government agencies be able to use the technology for the positive benefits that facial recognition brings quicker. Companies would make more money with the targeted ads and other money saving techniques this tech brings. The stakeholder that suffers the most from this action would be the citizens. The weaknesses include no privacy for the people,

The second course of action that we could take would be to let the companies look out for their own self-interest and have them develop and use the technology however they please. This action would mean that privacy is not considered and that the companies have the ultimate say in the way facial recognition is used. The strength of this action would be that there are no rules or regulations to follow so companies could develop the technology faster. This, in turn, would help government agencies be able to use the technology for the positive benefits that facial recognition brings quicker. Companies would make more money with the targeted ads and other money saving techniques this tech brings. The stakeholder that suffers the most from this action would be the citizens. The weaknesses include no privacy for the people, a chance for government abuse, and companies becoming too powerful. This action would be a dictator’s dream making this fall under the egoistic approach, “In this approach, an individual often uses the utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest amount of good for him or herself” (Brown University). The egoistic approach falls perfectly under this course of action because the companies would use the utilitarian approach creating the most good for themselves without worrying about anybody else. Using this approach disregards the people and we’d most likely become a communist nation.

The last course of action that is a possibility is to continue to develop the facial recognition software, address the privacy concerns, and create laws to fit the rights of all stakeholders involved. By following this course of action, we can still develop the technology and use it for all the wonderful benefits that it is intended for. The other benefits of this action would be able to keep our privacy, companies not wasting any extra money on marketing, and the government able to run more efficiently. Weaknesses to this course of action would be a slower development of facial recognition software due to companies having to abide by new privacy laws and regulations. The ethical framework that this action represents it the utilitarian approach, “This conforms to our feeling that some good and some bad will necessarily be the result of our action and that the best action will be that which provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm” (Brown University). In this case, the utilitarian approach would create the most good and does the least harm to society. People would still have the privacy that they are entitled to and still have all the amazing benefits that this technology will bring to the world.

Issues with Facial Recognition Technology #11

Among all the issues regarding this technology, the salient issue is privacy.  Our privacy can be infringed upon in many ways with the development of facial recognition. There is the possibility of predatory advertising by companies. For example, “there is the possibility of manipulating customers. In theory, stores could monitor the emotional state of their customers and send them tailored ads to persuade them to part with more money” (Gutowski). This form of harassment invades our privacy by attacking our desire to buy based on emotion and we then end up with a product that we really didn’t need or couldn’t realistically afford. Companies should not have the ability to sell their merchandise by invading our privacy. Another issue regarding privacy invasion is the potential abuse by governments and law enforcement. There is the possibility that the government can use this technology to spy on whoever they want to at any time. “Outside of the U.S., dictators could use this software to suppress human rights. Facial recognition apps make it easier for governments to scan crowds and melt away anonymity, matching protestors to online profiles. Last year, the Huffington Post reported this account of an Iranian blogger tortured to death for his Facebook login” (Gutowski). This example shows this type of privacy invasion is happening at this moment around the world and reminds us of the potential dangers this technology can bring.

Another important issue to point out regarding privacy is the potential of enhanced stalking. Facial recognition opens a new platform for stalkers to have a better idea about the person’s whereabouts and know more about the person their stalking. This is the sad and ugly truth of what this technology can be used to do. Privacy concerns also surround the possibility of increasingly invasive job interviews. The employer will know everything about you before you come in to interview, which could become problematic for many people trying to get a good paying job. The biggest problem we have regarding facial recognition software is the major delay in legislation, “It’s no surprise that legislation lags behind technology. Our toys evolve so fast, it’s not realistic to expect comprehensive laws in real time as if our legal system came with an update button” (Gutowski).  This issue raises the biggest concern and needs to be the issue that is addressed in a course of action to figure out the best way to deal with this technology and the privacy concerns that surround it.

 

Facial Recognition Stakeholders #10

Facial recognition technology has three major stakeholders involved in making this technology operate successfully in society. The first major stakeholder is the government. The government has the ability to regulate how this technology is used and what it is used for. They are a major player in the protection of our privacy. As our government, they have the responsibility to protect our liberties and freedoms and need to hold our privacy in the highest regard. “It’s time for a U.S. lawmakers to get a handle on this. Otherwise, our faces could unlock a surveillance state more controlling than anything even George Orwell could have dreamed up.” (Roberts), this can be the horrifying reality of our nation. They need to make the citizen’s values a priority while making legislation to make facial recognition benefit all parties involved.

The second major stakeholder involved are the citizen’s, us. We are what this technology is going to be used on and who it’s going to affect the most. Our rights are at stake more than ever and if we’re not careful “privacy” will become a thing of the past. “The routine unsupervised use of face recognition systems, according to the dozens of signatories, threatens the privacy and civil liberties of millions, especially those of immigrants and people of color” (Kofman). We have the responsibility to take action and fight for what is right or wrong if we want to continue having the privacy we need to let that be known. The values we hold as human beings tend to fluctuate from person to person, however, we all share a common value and it is called freedom. This value that we hold so highly in America has the chance to be infringed upon by this technology if we are not careful.

The third major stakeholder is the companies that are developing and using facial recognition technology. This stakeholder has complete control about how the technology works and what it can do, good and bad. Companies have a big responsibility to uphold and need to have our personal values in consideration over just making the most money possible. Their values need to align with the people.

 

Privacy and Facial Recognition Technology #9

Technology is improving faster and faster every day. It’s improving so fast that proper legislation is becoming increasingly difficult to catch up with the technologies growth rate. This is causing major concern because technology is starting to threaten our basic human rights and freedoms. One of the technologies that are infringing upon our rights and freedoms is called, “facial recognition technology”. Facial recognition is a computer application capable of identifying or verifying a person from a digital image or a video frame. Meaning wherever you go or whatever you do this technology will be able to know who you are, what you do, and what your taste and preferences are.

Essentially this A.I will know everything there is to know about you even if you’re aware of it or not, “Face recognition technology can pick up on things like your age, gender and maybe even your mood. It could even tell whether you’re a criminal” (Revell). This may sound frightening however there is a lot of good that comes from this technology. It can be used to help marketing campaigns reach the right set of individuals, helping companies save money and operate efficiently. Facial recognition can be used to help law enforcement catch criminals more effectively and most importantly help find missing children. This technology will enhance our personal security and allow for all our belongings to only operate for us. It will also help our personal health by scanning our face and notifying us if we have an imbalance in our bodies or have a serious illness that needs attention immediately. These benefits just scratch the surface in regard to what this technology is capable of and what we can expect from it, but at what cost?

The cost is simple, privacy, “concerns as government agencies and companies are more able to track individuals through their communities, and even around the world” (Cino). The question we need to consider is at what point does this technology completely infringe upon our basic human rights? We really need to look deeply into this technology and see who is involved, analyze the actions we can take to maximize privacy and still receive the benefits this technology offers, and determine a solution that fits best for our progressing society.