With the war in Ukraine, the Pandemic and myriad other world events, seemingly little things like advancements in facial recognition technology (FRT) go unnoticed. The ability to to create an adaptive database of people, that with automated surveillance can in very little time point out a specific individual, is unsurprisingly controversial. And, while most companies steer clear of this little man-made-horror-beyond-our-comprehension, a few pioneering corporations have opted to institute it in their facilities.
One of said corporations is Madison Square Garden Entertainment (MSG). For this New York City based company (that runs several theaters and other venues), FRT is employed for security purposes. It works to streamline the identification process of entrants and blacklist problematic individuals. These individuals include: thieves, felons, sex offenders and people who speak out against Madison Square Garden Entertainment.
Strikingly, 90 different law firms are currently upholding lawsuits against MSG. Several lawyers from those firms, not working on lawsuits related to MSG, have legally purchased tickets to an MSG Venue and been denied entry. Every single employee of the 90 law firms posing suits against MSG have been blacklisted from attending.
The New York Attorney General Lelita James requested that MSG hand in information within regards to its use of facial recognition technology over concerns that the company was violating personal freedoms and human rights. Attorney General James warns that this system of retaliation against law firms: “...may dissuade lawyers from taking on legitimate cases against the company, including sexual harassment or employment discrimination claims, in order to avoid the alleged ban…”
Not being able to watch Mariah Carrey perform live may seem far from an infringement on human rights, but when you consider what it would be like if business practices like this were more commonplace, these applications of technology are much more concerning.
Another place FRT is being implemented is in airports, a critical piece of infrastructure for long distance travel. If MSG can stop you from attending a concert, could airlines keep you from traveling if you had spoken out against their ethics, or their effects on the climate? At the moment probably not but in a future where corporations punishing their criticizers is normalized that might not be too far off.
The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) seeks to ensure“technological advancements don’t come at the expense of age-old rights.” STOP is tracking many of the current court cases related to facial recognition technology, and while there has been some progress in New York and Illinois to protect facial privacy, those areas seem to be the bulk of the movement.
STOP is concerned about FRT's potential for discrimination, both intentionally and unintentionally. STOP representative Albert Fox Cahn warns about systematic racism in the misidentification of BIPOC by FRT. STOP is also highly concerned with the prospect of FRT being used in tandem with recordings of protestors to punish anyone critical of police brutality.
A normalization of this technology would mean a loss of privacy. Not just in outdoor places but at home, too. Cameras are everywhere. If that statement seems overly paranoid, check your pocket, your surroundings or whatever device you're viewing this on. The good thing is, the idea of being tracked and recognized by technology isn’t deemed normal. It’s scary. So, before that fear is replaced by a longing for the days when you could walk out into a crowd and not be under the judgment of every corporate, government or personal camera, let’s secure this privacy for ourselves.
https://www.stopspying.org/ai-protest-surveillance-lawsuit
3 comments:
While MSG is not a public entity I find the blocking of people who speak out against their company immoral and unethical. Blocking people based on their thoughts and negative views against certain groups takes away freedoms, going against American values. I agree that the extent to which this can be taken is what scares me if large private companies which control large parts of our lives start blacklisting for dissent and speaking out against them. While the actual FRT technology is innovative for its ability to protect against truly harmful people, the majority of people will be forced to live in a world in which they feel compelled to comply with large corporations. I think STOP needs to continue to monitor where the technology is headed as the expansion of similar policies among larger private entities could be potentially dangerous.
This reminds me of content I've seen online from facial recognition engineers who refuse to use such technology in airports/other venues. I can't pull up that content at will, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think it poses a pretty spooky question as to the future of having so much personal data available to the masses. How did they get the facial recognition data from those lawyers in the first place? I think that it's wrong of MSG to blacklist all of the lawyers, regardless of their affiliation with the specific suits, but I think this goes further than that and is an example of how new technology can be... weaponized against the public. Not to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, but I wonder how kids with TSA PreCheck and who will grow up using these technologies and subsequently forfeiting personal data will find that impacts them in the future.
While I think the previous commenters have covered my own opinions surrounding the threat this program poses to free speech rights, I think another important aspect of this situation is FRT itself. In my opinion, FRT is representative of a question that comes up in society a lot currently: Does the fact that we can justify whether we should? Yes, it's true that the development of facial recognition technology is a fascinating innovation, and one with several potential benefits. But it also seems to tip the scales a little too far in favor of businesses and organizations who choose to use it. Like others have said, FRT is a huge threat to privacy rights, and as I see it, is not worth the trade off. How accurate is this technology? Would it be able to catch a felon who comes to a concert dressed up, an easy cover for using makeup to change their appearance? Regardless of hypotheticals, there are other ways to go about identifying potential threats without jeopardizing the privacy of every person who enters MSG, a venue that can host up to 20,000 people for a single event. On top of this, the modern internet already exposes so much personal information. There are countless websites that can pull up a person's address, income, contact information, and other statistics to anyone who asks. Is it worth attaching a face to these in-depth profiles so that the security checks at MSG and other venues are more efficient? My answer is no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Square_Garden
Post a Comment