April, 14 2021, 12:00am EDT

First-of-its-Kind Letter Calls for Ban on Private and Corporate Use of Facial Recognition
Groups call facial recognition "too dangerous to exist," say it must be abolished.
WASHINGTON
More than 20 civil and human rights organizations are expanding the fight against facial recognition and calling for a ban not only on government and law enforcement use of the technology, but also private and corporate use.
The letter, which highlights recent abuses by corporations including Uber Eats, Amazon, and Apple, states that this technology threatens to suppress workers' rights to organize, makes frontline workers susceptible to harassment and exploitation, puts personal biometric data in danger, and exacerbates existing biases.
The letter says that "In a world where private companies are already collecting our data, analyzing it, and using it to manipulate us to make a profit, we can't afford to naively believe that private entities can be trusted with our biometric information. A technology that is inherently unjust, that has the potential to exponentially expand and automate discrimination and human rights violations, and that contributes to an ever growing and inescapable surveillance state is too dangerous to exist."
While the call to ban law enforcement and government use of facial recognition has grown, and lawmakers have banned this use in many cities (and introduced a federal bill), Portland, OR is the only city to ban private use of facial recognition thus far. The organizations point to the Portland legislation as a template for other lawmakers to address the concerns with private and corporate use of the technology, and call on "local, state, and federal elected officials, as well as corporate leaders, to ban the use of facial recognition surveillance by private entities."
"There is zero reason to believe that corporations can use this technology responsibly, especially at a time when these companies are already collecting our data and using it to manipulate us for profit," said Caitlin Seeley George (she/her), Director of Campaigns and Operations at Fight for the Future. "This technology is inherently discriminatory and dangerous, no amount of regulation can address that. In order to protect people in workplaces, stores, restaurants, hospitals, transit and beyond, we must ban it."
"Opt-in consent based regulatory frameworks will not address these harms," added Evan Greer (she/her), Deputy Director at Fight for the Future. "If employees have to agree to being under constant facial recognition surveillance in order to have a job, that's not meaningful consent. If a patient has to agree to have their biometric information collected in order to receive care at a hospital, that's not really consent. Even more innocuous uses, like getting your face scanned to buy a burrito come with significant risks. The vast majority of people have no idea what the dangers of this technology are, and putting the onus on them fails to recognize power imbalances."
"Facial recognition technology poses serious threats to personal freedom. Letting this tool of authoritarian control spread throughout the private sector has serious implications for worker organizing rights and heightens the risk of catastrophic biometric data breaches," said Tracy Rosenberg, Advocacy Director at Oakland Privacy. "You can't replace your face, The troubled record of facial recognition technology in identifying darker skinned people and youth poses severe dangers for people too often criminalized. Facial recognition technology should be put back in the bottle. We don't need it and the dangers can't be regulated away."
"Facial recognition being prone to racial bias is not its only problem. If it were 100% accurate, it would be horrifying. If you're tracked wherever you go, your movements are laid bare for any company or government to exploit. Facial recognition deployments strip away your whole right to be let alone, in the name of more efficient advertising and policing. It's not worth it," said Alex Marthews, National Chair of Restore The Fourth.
"Corporate facial recognition fuels racist policing of Black, brown, and immigrant communities," said Aly Panjwani, Policy & Advocacy Manager at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. "Facial recognition is biased, broken, and dangerous to the livelihood of working-class people. This technology exists to monitor, exploit, and incarcerate and must be banned."
"The companies that develop and sell facial recognition technology need to recognize and confront its inherent dangers - and they need to stop it now," said Michael Connor, Executive Director of Open MIC, a nonprofit which has organized corporate shareholders to oppose the spread of facial recognition. Connor noted that a shareholder proposal at Amazon highlighting the human rights risks of the company's facial recognition product won more than 40 percent of the independent shareholder vote at Amazon's 2020 annual meeting, with yet another vote scheduled at this year's upcoming 2021 annual meeting. "Investors increasingly understand the dangers of facial recognition," Connor said. "Managements and boards of directors should take note."
"Facial recognition is one of the most dangerous forms of surveillance ever invented. We know that its use--both by private and government entities--puts Black and brown communities already targeted by state violence at an even higher risk of arrest and incarceration. And we know that it's already being used to target & silence protesters, deport migrant families, and control and surveil workers by their employers at Amazon warehouses and beyond. It's clear to us that the dangers this technology poses can't be "reformed" or "regulated" and we cannot trust tech companies--who are making enormous profits off of this tech--with the surveillance tools they already have. We must ban corporate & private use of facial recognition and fight for a surveillance-free future for all of us," added Laura Barrios, Campaign Manager, MPower Change.
"Corporate use of facial recognition will serve as an end-run around bans on government use of the technology and is a profound danger to the public in its own right. Face surveillance is too powerful for any entity to use because it enables widespread and surreptitious tracking of individuals on the back of cheap and omnipresent devices, cameras. The harms of facial recognition, both when it errs and when it is accurate, fall predominantly upon people of color, low-income individuals, and migrants. The use of this technology threatens to turn everyone into a suspect. FRT also permits unprecedented surveillance of workers, both on the job and off the clock. The only responsible step is for corporations to stop using facial recognition," said Jeramie Scott, Senior Counsel and Director of the Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
"Let's face it, the new gold standard for corporate power is private data, and owning your face is about as personal as it gets. Furthermore, corporations using facial recognition technology further exacerbates the criminalization of Black and Brown people," said Matt Nelson, Executive Director of Presente.org, the nation's largest Latinx digital organizing group. "Profiting from a surveillance state is an unethical, dangerous racket and has no place in a future democracy that works for all of us."
The release of this letter comes after a handful of recent cases that highlight the growing problem of facial recognition being used by corporations: the hack of more than 150,000 Verkada security cameras that include facial recognition software and are used in offices, gyms, hospitals, jails, schools, police stations, and more; Disney's announcement that it will be testing facial recognition at the entrance to the Magic Kingdom, and the incidences with Uber Eats, Apple, and Amazon previously mentioned.
Organizations signed onto the letter include Action Center on Race and The Economy (ACRE), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Cryptoharlem, Daily Kos, Data for Black Lives, Demand Progress, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Fight for the Future, Greenpeace USA, Massachusetts Jobs with Justice, MediaJustice, MPower Change, Muslim Justice League, Oakland Privacy, Open MIC (Open Media & Information Companies Initiative), Presente.org, Privacy PDX, Public Citizen, RAICES, Restore the Fourth, RootsAction.org, Secure Justice, S.T.O.P. (Surveillance Technology Oversight Project), and United We Dream.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
'The American People Do Not Want Oligarchy': Poll Shows Trump's Approval at Historic Low at 100-Day Mark
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies will cause an economic recession in the short term.
Apr 28, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump nears the 100-day mark of his second term, a recent ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll shows that his approval rating now sits at a historic low of 39%, a nadir that prompted one prominent progressive to remark that the negative public sentiment comes as "the resistance is just beginning."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has mounted a highly successful "Fighting Oligarchy" tour across America in recent months, highlighted the findings of the poll on Sunday and wrote: "The American people do not want oligarchy, authoritarianism, or attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, or the VA," speaking of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The poll, which conducted a random national sample of 2,464 adults in English and Spanish between April 18-22, found discontent among voters when it comes to Trump's handling of multiple policies issues, particularly on the economy.
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies—such as sweeping tariffs—will cause an economic recession in the short term.
What's more, 53% say the economy is worse since Trump took office and 62% said that the prices for things they rely on have gone up.
Trump's overall approval on immigration policy, one of his core campaign issues, is also less than 50%. When it comes to his handling of immigration—an area where Trump has moved to roll back birthright citizenship, deported U.S. citizens, and invoked a rarely used wartime authority to deport Venezuelan nationals to a megaprison in El Salvador, among other measures—his approval rating sits at 46%, according to the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Additionally, over 55% of Americans say Trump is "going too far" when it comes to seeking to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off federal employees to reduce the size of government, and taking measures agains this political foes.
Overall, his approval among Americans has dipped from 45% positive in February to 39% positive on the eve of the 100-day mark, which is on Tuesday.
According to The Washington Post's analysis of the poll results, Trump's approval at 100 days in both of his terms is lower than any other president's at or near the 100-day mark "since polls began." Polling data on this question stretches back to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (FDR) third term, per the Post, when his approval rating was at 68% at the 100-day point. ABC News' write up of the poll results says that "Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years."
Some have drawn parallels between Trump and FDR, whose first 15 weeks in office in 1933 were dominated by a push to work with Congress on economic recovery and relief for working people, the first phase of what's known as the "New Deal." However, historians have noted that in substance the two could not be more different.
In reporting piece published Monday, the Post noted that Roosevelt's push in the first 100 days led to major new laws, while Trump largely relies on executive order.
"Roosevelt spent an awful lot of time trying to craft constitutional justifications in legislation, and draft it in such a way that the courts might accept it," Anthony Badger, a historian and author of FDR: The First Hundred Days, told the Post. "He wasn't trying to do it by executive order."
The historian and author Eric Rauchway toldCNN recently that substantively Trump's policies are the "opposite of the New Deal."
Trump "seems to be taking apart regulatory mechanisms. He seems to be drawing down public investment in a variety of areas, including the arts and so forth. He seems to be, as far as I can tell, diminishing resources sent to the Social Security Administration, which of course is the central piece of the New Deal’s proto-welfare state," Racuhway told the outlet.
In a similar vein to Sanders, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote Monday that Trump's actions in his first 100 days serves as a call to mobilization and to "loudly and boldly sound the alarm."
"The U.S. Constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray," wrote Reich. "At this rate, we won't make it through the second hundred days."
Reich suggested that that answer is for Americans to speak out and urge lawmakers in Congress, both chambers of which are currently GOP-controlled, to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump.
"Americans must be mobilized into such a huge wave of anger and disgust that members of the House are compelled to impeach Trump (for the third time) and enough senators are moved to finally convict him," he concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of US Voters Support Third Trump Impeachment: Poll
"It's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power," said Free Speech for People's campaign director.
Apr 28, 2025
New polling shows a majority of U.S. voters support Congress impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump a third time, which would break a record the Republican set during his first term, when he was twice impeached by the House of Representatives but never convicted by the Senate.
Specifically, a polling memo published Friday by ASO Communications and Research Collaborative shows that just a few months into Trump's return to the White House, 52% of likely voters across the ideological spectrum somewhat or strongly support impeaching him—including 84% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and even 20% of his fellow Republicans.
The survey was conducted from April 18-21 by Data for Progress. The polling firm also asked the 1,171 respondents, "Thinking of an impeachment effort led by Democrats in Congress, which of the following comes closest to your view, even if none are exactly right?"
The largest share of respondents (46%)—including 80% of Democrats, 52% of Independents, and 9% of Republicans—said that "Democrats in Congress should attempt to impeach Trump because they have a duty to remove a president that has violated Americans' constitutional rights and the law."
Another 38% said Democrats should not impeach Trump because he hasn't done anything worthy of that, while 17% said they should avoid impeachment "because it is a performative action that will likely fail and make the Democratic Party look weak."
The Friday memo notes that "support for impeachment is now on par with the levels seen during the two most recent impeachment proceedings—even before a full public case has been presented. This moment offers an opportunity to build that case for the American public and demonstrate that elected leaders are committed to upholding their oaths and are willing to act boldly to protect our freedoms, our families, and our futures."
In response to the polling, Free Speech for People campaign director Alexandra Flores-Quilty declared that "Americans across the country refuse to let Trump and his allies destroy our democracy."
Free Speech for People is leading a nonpartisan Impeach Trump Again campaign, which includes a petition that has now been signed by over 370,000 people nationwide. The group's constitutional lawyers have documented abuses of power by Trump and his billionaire allies since Inauguration Day, from illegal actions targeting immigrants and seeking retribution against perceived adversaries to attacking voting rights and having criminal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams dismissed.
According to Flores-Quilty, "It's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power."
Although the GOP now narrowly holds both chambers of Congress, articles of impeachment against the president could still be coming soon from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).
The Hillreported that Green said during an early April anti-Trump rally: "We need a Senate that will convict him this time, and I want you to know, from my heart, from my heart, I understand that he is a Goliath. He is a Goliath. He has control of the generals in the military. He has control of the Justice Department. He has control of the Republican Party, but my friends, my friends, for every Goliath, there is a David."
"And I want you to know, Mr. President, this David is going to bring articles of impeachment against you within the next 30 days," he told the crowd in Washington, D.C. "Within the next 30 days, I'm bringing articles of impeachment. I'm coming for you. Mr. President, this David is coming for you."
New NYT/Siena Poll: —Trump's approval rating is 42% vs. 54% disapprove —59% of voters think Trump's 2nd term in office is "scary" —54% say Trump is "exceeding the powers available to him" —Trump has negative approval in all policy areas www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/u...
[image or embed]
— Yonah Freemark (@yonahfreemark.com) April 25, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Other recent surveys have also found that voters are alarmed by or unhappy with the president. For example, a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted from April 21-24 shows that 66% of voters describe his second term as "chaotic," 59% think it's "scary," 54% disapprove of how Trump is handling his job, and 53% believe that the United States is "headed in the wrong direction."
An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted April 18-22 similarly found that 55% of Americans disapprove of the president's job performance. A majority of voters also said that Trump is "going too far" in trying to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off government employees, taking measures against political opponents, and trying to end efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in workplaces.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Palestinian Envoy to ICJ: Israel Using Starvation as 'Weapon of War' in 'Genocidal Campaign'
"Israel is starving, killing and displacing Palestinians while also targeting and blocking humanitarian organizations trying to save their lives," said Palestinian envoy Ammar Hijazi.
Apr 28, 2025
With Israel's "total and complete blockade" leaving people across Gaza "slowly dying" if they aren't being "killed with bombs and bullets," according to one United Nations official, Palestinian envoy Ammar Hijazi was among those who described the reality on the ground to the U.N.'s top court on Monday as the body considered Israel's legal obligations in Palestine.
Ammar Hijazi, Palestinian ambassador to the Netherlands, warned the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that since October 2023, Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid "has progressively turned into a total siege."
"Israel is starving, killing, and displacing Palestinians, while also targeting and blocking humanitarian organizations trying to save their lives," he said, accusing the Israeli military of waging a "genocidal campaign" in Gaza.
On March 2, for the second time since the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) began bombarding Gaza in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack in October 2023, Israel halted all humanitarian aid into the enclave. The total blockade was followed by Israel's decision to end a cease-fire that has begun in January, conducting a bombing campaign that killed hundreds of Palestinians in its first day.
For nearly two months, food supplies have dwindled in Gaza, and the World Food Program announced last week that it had delivered its last remaining stocks of hot meals to food kitchens.
The siege has created conditions that are "incompatible with sustaining life or the continued existence of Palestinians in Gaza," Hijazi said.
The ambassador noted that the ICJ hearing was taking place to consider whether Israel is violating international law.
"It is not about the number of aid trucks Israel is or is not allowing into the Occupied Palestinian Territories, especially Gaza," said Hijazi. "It is about Israel destroying the fundamentals of life in Palestine while it blocks U.N. and other humanitarians from providing lifesaving aid to the population. It is about Israel unraveling fundamental principles of international law, including their obligations under the U.N. Charter."
"Starvation is here," Hijazi added. "Humanitarian aid is being used as a weapon of war."
The hearing on Monday was the first of several that will take place at the ICJ over the next five days, following a resolution passed by the U.N. General Assembly last year calling on the court to consider Israel's legal responsibilities after the government blocked the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) from operating in the Palestinian territories—cutting Palestinians off from the agency that has for years provided crucial food aid, cash assistance, and health services, among other necessities.
Elinor Hammarskjold, U.N. undersecretary-general for legal affairs, argued during the hearing that Israel's ban on UNRWA is "inconsistent with Israel's obligation under international law" and warned that Israel has an "overarching obligation to administer the territory for the benefit of the local population" and must "agree to and facilitate relief schemes."
As the hearing was underway, medical sources in Gaza toldAl Jazeera that at least 36 people had been killed in Israeli attacks since dawn while eight out of 12 ambulances in southern Gaza were no longer operating due to a lack of fuel.
The Palestinian Civil Defense said its capacity to respond to residents in need will be increasingly reduced by the blockade, "threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens and displaced persons in shelters."
"We hold the Israeli occupation responsible for the worsening suffering of our people in the Gaza Strip due to the ongoing war and the continued imposition of the blockade," said the civil defense.
In addition to describing to the court the impact of Israel's blockade, Hijazi spoke about the IDF's attacks that have killed hundreds of aid workers, including nearly 300 UNRWA staff members and dozens of paramedics.
"These killings are deliberate, not accidental," he said of the killing earlier this month of 15 paramedics who were found with bullet wounds in a mass grave, and whose vehicles were shown to be clearly marked in cellphone footage that was later released—despite Israeli claims that they had provoked suspicion by driving in the dark without headlights on.
One of the attorneys representing Palestine at the ICJ, Paul Reichler, said that "the inhumanity of this Israeli policy is compounded by its unlawful objective: to forever extinguish the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination."
"In these circumstances, there can be no doubt that Israel is violating its obligations under international humanitarian law, including obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law," said Reichler.
Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, another of the international human rights lawyers who represented Palestine at the ICJ on Monday, cataloged just some of Israel's recent displays of hostility to the rule of law, noting that Defense Minister Israel Katz said earlier this month that "Israel's policy is clear: No humanitarian aid will enter Gaza," and that the Israeli government is planning to annex 75 square kilometers of the southern Gaza city of Rafah as part of a so-called "buffer zone."
Ní Ghrálaigh emphasized that "despite the extraordinary efforts of Palestinian journalists, who are themselves repeatedly targeted and killed, so much remains undocumented."
"As stated by UNRWA's commissioner-general, I quote, 'I shudder to think of what will still be revealed about the horrors that have taken place in this narrow strip of land,'" she said.
Forty states and four international groups are scheduled to present in the upcoming ICJ hearings, which are separate from the genocide case filed at the court by South Africa. The ICJ said in January 2024 that Israel was required to take steps to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide and to provide humanitarian aid.
A ruling in the case that began Monday is expected to take several months to be announced.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular