Amazon releases suggestions for regulating facial recognition software

Who will guard the guards? Amazon!

Amazon has released guidelines for facial recognition software that it wants lawmakers to consider when crafting legislation. With the post, Amazon joins Microsoft in calling for regulation of the technology, and notably, its application in law enforcement.

Notably, as the ACLU points out, Amazon’s suggestions place the burden of “misuse” of the technology onto the people using the tech — not onto the manufacturer, Amazon. Surprise!

“Proposing a weak framework does not absolve Amazon of responsibility for its face surveillance product,” Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU senior legislative counsel, told Mashable over email.

Reports showcasing the discriminatory potential of Amazon’s own facial recognition technology, Rekognition, directly inspired the report. Amazon has been slammed in recent months for selling the tech to law enforcement. And for the very development what the ACLU described as “primed for abuse in the hands of governments” that “poses a grave threat to communities, including people of color and immigrants.”

Amazon denies the ACLU’s reports of how its technology can play a part in discrimination, but is putting forward legislative guidelines that it hopes will make Rekognition less, um, controversial.

In the two-plus years we’ve been offering Amazon Rekognition, we have not received a single report of misuse by law enforcement. Even with this strong track record to date, we understand why people want there to be oversight and guidelines put in place to make sure facial recognition technology cannot be used to discriminate. We support the calls for an appropriate national legislative framework that protects individual civil rights and ensures that governments are transparent in their use of facial recognition technology.

The ACLU directly refutes Amazon’s claims about its report, specifically the idea that it has not been misused by law enforcement.

“Amazon says it has not received a single report of misuse by law enforcement, but just last week was made aware of misuse and reportedly took no action,” Singh Guliani said.

Amazon’s most far reaching suggestion is that all existing civil rights legislation apply to facial recognition technology. That is, facial recognition should be held accountable if it plays a part in discriminating against protected groups.

The note also suggests that law enforcement use facial recognition in a human-moderated and limited capacity for its investigations. Amazon suggests that human review of facial recognition results must accompany investigations, and that facial recognition be held to a 99% confidence threshold. Additionally, it suggests that law enforcement release transparency reports about its use of the technology. 

In public spaces outside of law enforcement, Amazon says it supports a national legislative framework governing how companies can use facial recognition commercially. It suggests that placards be put in place notifying people when facial recognition is being employed.

“New technology should not be banned or condemned because of its potential misuse,” the note concludes. “Instead, there should be open, honest, and earnest dialogue among all parties involved to ensure that the technology is applied appropriately and is continuously enhanced.” 

Are Amazon’s suggestions significant for protecting people’s civil rights and privacy? To all of Amazon’s suggestions, the ACLU is not impressed.

“Amazon’s framework rings woefully hollow, underscores the company’s refusal to properly address the dangers of its technology in government hands, and reinforces the urgent need for Amazon to get out of the surveillance business altogether,” Singh Guliani said.

For one, there is almost no burden of legislation that would apply to Amazon itself in the company’s suggestions.

Instead, it stresses “Our customers are responsible for following the law in how they use the technology.” This is akin to saying we just make the tech, and it’s up to people to use it lawfully. This in itself is a legislative position that should not necessarily be a given.

The ACLU also counters most of Amazon’s suggestions. It points out that Amazon has acknowledged that it does not have a proactive way of knowing whether its customers are using facial recognition in a discriminatory manner. That Amazon’s calls for transparency are hypocritical, considering that it will not share with Congress which agencies are using its product. It objects to the idea of the “99% confidence threshold,” because “changing the threshold does nothing to the reduce the inevitability of law enforcement using the technology to determine who attends protests, monitor immigrants, or target communities of color.”

And, in perhaps the most stunningly obvious objection to Amazon’s suggestions, the ACLU points out that there is no law on the books that authorizes government agencies to use facial recognition in the first place.

“Amazon says that face recognition should not violate the law, yet it ignores the fact that there is no law on the books authorizing its use by law enforcement at all,” Singh Guliani said.

Technology companies have a long history — stretching back to the era of railroads — of taking a hand in crafting the very legislation that governs its own activities. It is a pre-emptive strike, that allows the company to say “we are in favor of regulation,” while also making sure that the regulation is not too cumbersome. 

“Industry has a role in participating in the public debate over issues, but we should be wary of proposals pushed by industry that are not in the public good,” Singh Guliani said.

So when Amazon — or any private company, really — says it is “in favor of regulation,” make sure to take a closer look at who’s really benefiting from its “suggested” rules.