Privacy advocates quit a process to craft safeguards for use of facial recognition technology to protest the influence of tech industry lobbyists.
(Photo: nolifebeforecoffee/flickr/cc)
Jun 16, 2015
Nine privacy advocates on Monday resigned in protest from a year-long attempt to develop a code of conduct for the use of facial recognition technology, citing a failure to agree on "basic, specific" safeguards with industry lobbyists.
"At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they've never heard of are tracking their every movement--and identifying them by name--using facial recognition technology," the privacy advocates wrote in a joint statement (pdf). "Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain agreement even with that basic, specific premise."
The U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) brought together a panel of security experts and lobbyists in February 2014 to develop a voluntary code of conduct "that specifies how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights applies to facial recognition technology in the commercial context."
But over the course of 16 months, the nine privacy advocates--who include representatives from the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Consumer Federation of America, among other groups--came to believe that the NTIA process was unlikely to "yield a set of privacy rules that offers adequate protections for the use of facial recognition technology."
"In recent NTIA meetings...industry stakeholders were unable to agree on any concrete scenario where companies should employ facial recognition only with a consumer's permission," their statement reads. "The position that companies never need to ask permission to use biometric identification is at odds with consumer expectations, current industry practices, as well as existing state law."
Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center for Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law School and one of the nine privacy advocates, said in a statement that the mass resignation "should be a wake-up call to Americans: Industry lobbyists are choking off Washington's ability to protect consumer privacy."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Nine privacy advocates on Monday resigned in protest from a year-long attempt to develop a code of conduct for the use of facial recognition technology, citing a failure to agree on "basic, specific" safeguards with industry lobbyists.
"At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they've never heard of are tracking their every movement--and identifying them by name--using facial recognition technology," the privacy advocates wrote in a joint statement (pdf). "Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain agreement even with that basic, specific premise."
The U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) brought together a panel of security experts and lobbyists in February 2014 to develop a voluntary code of conduct "that specifies how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights applies to facial recognition technology in the commercial context."
But over the course of 16 months, the nine privacy advocates--who include representatives from the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Consumer Federation of America, among other groups--came to believe that the NTIA process was unlikely to "yield a set of privacy rules that offers adequate protections for the use of facial recognition technology."
"In recent NTIA meetings...industry stakeholders were unable to agree on any concrete scenario where companies should employ facial recognition only with a consumer's permission," their statement reads. "The position that companies never need to ask permission to use biometric identification is at odds with consumer expectations, current industry practices, as well as existing state law."
Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center for Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law School and one of the nine privacy advocates, said in a statement that the mass resignation "should be a wake-up call to Americans: Industry lobbyists are choking off Washington's ability to protect consumer privacy."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Nine privacy advocates on Monday resigned in protest from a year-long attempt to develop a code of conduct for the use of facial recognition technology, citing a failure to agree on "basic, specific" safeguards with industry lobbyists.
"At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they've never heard of are tracking their every movement--and identifying them by name--using facial recognition technology," the privacy advocates wrote in a joint statement (pdf). "Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain agreement even with that basic, specific premise."
The U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) brought together a panel of security experts and lobbyists in February 2014 to develop a voluntary code of conduct "that specifies how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights applies to facial recognition technology in the commercial context."
But over the course of 16 months, the nine privacy advocates--who include representatives from the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Consumer Federation of America, among other groups--came to believe that the NTIA process was unlikely to "yield a set of privacy rules that offers adequate protections for the use of facial recognition technology."
"In recent NTIA meetings...industry stakeholders were unable to agree on any concrete scenario where companies should employ facial recognition only with a consumer's permission," their statement reads. "The position that companies never need to ask permission to use biometric identification is at odds with consumer expectations, current industry practices, as well as existing state law."
Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center for Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law School and one of the nine privacy advocates, said in a statement that the mass resignation "should be a wake-up call to Americans: Industry lobbyists are choking off Washington's ability to protect consumer privacy."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.