Big Brother Might Not Be Looking Over Our Shoulders
October 6, 2020
Ever since George Orwell wrote his dystopian classic 1984, the metaphor of an Orwellian society entered the cultural zeitgeist. As more cameras and recording equipment become commonplace, the Orwellian metaphor becomes a reality or at least we are led to believe. Venture Beat explains that might not be true in the article, “AI Weekly: A Biometric Surveillance Stat Is Not Inevitable, Says AI Now Institute.”
According to the article, we have been conditioned to believe that an Orwellian a.k.a. surveillance capitalistic society is inevitable so we do not fight companies and governments that implement the technology. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the idea is easy to believe, especially as biometric technology becomes in demand.
Biometric data collection and surveillance is new and there are still gray areas when it comes to legal, ethical, and safe usage for biometrics. AI Now wrote a report that examines biometrics’ challenges, their importance, and solutions. Eight real life case studies are referenced such as police use of facial recognition technology in the United States and United Kingdom, centralizing biometric data in Australia and India, biometric surveillance in schools, and others.
An understanding of biometric challenges and solutions are important for everyone. There are currently barriers that hinder a greater understanding, especially a basic definition of “biometrics.” Some want to pause using these systems until laws are reformed, while others want to ban biometric technology:
“To effectively regulate the technology, average citizens, private companies, and governments need to fully understand data-powered systems that involve biometrics and their inherent tradeoffs. The report suggests that ‘any infringement of privacy or data-protection rights be necessary and strike the appropriate balance between the means used and the intended objective.’ Such proportionality also means ensuring a ‘right to privacy is balanced against a competing right or public interest.’”
How and why biometric technology will be used depends on the situation. The report used an example of Swedish schools that implemented facial recognition technology to track students’ attendance. Swedish authorities feared that the technology would creep on students and teachers, gathering rich data on them. They wondered how else this “creepy” data could be used. On the flipside, the same facial recognition technology can be used to monitor for identifying unauthorized people on school campuses as well as for weapons. Both concerns are valid, but which side is correct?
Regulation is needed but might happen only after biometric systems are deployed. India’s Aadhaar biometric identity project for every citizen (photographs, fingerprints, and iris scans). Aadhaar ran for twelve years without legal guardrails, but when Indian lawmakers could have repaired problems they made laws that skirted them.
Biometric systems will be implemented, but human error prevents them from being Orwellian.
Whitney Grace, October 6, 2020
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
