Privacy Advocates Quit Facial Recognition Panel to Protest Tech Lobby Chokehold
"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," advocates state in letter
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."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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."
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."