Colorado Law Enforcement Welcomes Speedy AI Facial Recognition Technology Along with Rules, Some Advocates Worry About Privacy and Misuse
(CPR News, Jul 25, 2024)
Officers are required to subject any AI facial recognition result to a “human review” — particularly if a result sparks a match that could lead to an arrest. Law enforcement agencies also must fully disclose their use of facial recognition technology to the community and to the governing body that oversees them, be it a city council or county commissioners.
Banks Want Your Voice Data for Extra Security Protection. Don't Do It!
(USA Today, Jul 25, 2024)
If you're skeptical of your bank having your voice data on record, you're not crazy −you’re smart. A voice can be cloned using AI with as little as 10 seconds of audio and afew bucks.
Biometric Authentication to AI-based CCTV Surveillance, UPSC Tightens Security Measure to Curb Exam Fraud
(The Financial Express, Jul 25, 2024)
According to the tender documents, UPSC will provide the exam schedule, list of venues, and number of candidates per venue to the service provider two to three weeks before the examination, the Indian Express reported. Candidate details, including names, roll numbers, and photos, will be shared seven days before the exam for use in fingerprint authentication and facial recognition.
Facing Up to the Threat of AI
(Forbes, Jul 25, 2024)
The widespread use of facial recognition technology and its potential impact on society is a significant concern. Joy Buolamwini, an AI researcher, has brought attention to biases in facial recognition databases and highlighted the technology's implications for privacy and human rights. Cases of wrongful arrests due to facial recognition, particularly affecting minorities, have emphasized the need for regulation and the protection of biometric rights.
Samsung Avoids BIPA Suit Over Photo Gallery Facial Recognition
(Bloomberg Law, Jul 25, 2024)
Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. skirted a class action claiming its photo application’s scanning technology violated Illinois’ state privacy law. The federal court’s decision granting Samsung’s motion to dismiss hinged on two main nuances: the difference between a product and its company, and identifying faces versus individuals. Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins ruled that Samsung’s facial scanning technology can only recognize faces, and cannot actually identify individuals, which puts it out of scope under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. Plaintiffs also failed to show that Samsung possess or has access to biometric data, as the complaint didn’t allege...
