Human rights advocate Liberty and US tech site The Verge have recently revealed a compelling narrative that could raise eyebrows among tech enthusiasts and VoIP engineers alike. According to these sources, IBM, a tech titan in the industry, set out on a $69.8m undertaking with the UK government to design and implement a national biometrics platform capable of facial recognition. This platform, aimed at immigration and law enforcement officials, is planned to be finalized in a five-stage development process.
Of considerable interest to industry pundits is the fact that merely a year ago, IBM unequivocally declared its opposition to mass surveillance in a formal correspondence to Congress. It is noteworthy to recall the quote: “…firmly opposes and will not condone uses of any technology, including facial recognition technology offered by other vendors, for mass surveillance…” Irrespective of the context—spurred by outrage over George Floyd’s death, IBM committed to a principle that now seems all too shaky.
On being questioned about these conflicting actions, IBM clarified that the UK’s Home Office Biometrics Matcher Platform and associated services are designed to help law enforcement and immigration services pinpoint suspects using fingerprint and photo data—not for mass surveillance. Furthermore, there’s no capability in the current system for video ingest that could lend itself to widespread “face-in-a-crowd” biometric usage.
Yet, the fine line IBM sketches with its justification is rather tenuous. The potential for the system to be ramped up to include video ingest—thus paving the way for mass surveillance—calls for warier scrutiny. The arena of facial recognition technology comes fraught with ethical complexities such as those surrounding racial profiling and constructs such as emotion recognition and social credit systems. Developments in AI can facilitate such constructs, leading to potential human rights abuses.
As these revelations unsettle stalwarts of the tech industry, it’s imperative that they serve as a wake-up call to governments. Transparency in the implementation of such technology and a clear set of parameters for its use are now more crucial than ever. It seems that the real onus, beyond the forays of tech giants into ethically murky territories, lies with the governmental institutions sanctioning these projects.
