GAO's Second Report On Facial Recognition Tech Provides More Details On Federal Use Of Clearview's Unvetted AI

from the still-greater-than-zero-agencies,-unfortunately dept

A couple of months ago, the Government Accountability Office completed the first pass of its review of federal use of facial recognition technology. It found a lot to be concerned about, including the fact that agencies were using unproven tech (like Clearview's ethical nightmare of a product) and doing very little to ensure the tech was used responsibly.

Some agencies appeared to have no internal oversight of facial recognition tech use, leading to agencies first telling the GAO no one was using the tech, only to update that answer to "more than 1,000 searches" when they had finished doing their first pass at due diligence.

A more complete report [PDF] has been released by the GAO, which includes answers to several questions asked of federal agencies using the tech. Unfortunately, it confirms that many agencies are bypassing what little internal controls are in place by asking state and local agencies to run searches for them. DHS entities (CBP, ICE) did the most freelancing using downstream (governmentally-speaking) databases and tech.

For whatever reason, CBP and ICE (which have access to their own tech) are using agencies in Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Kansas, and Missouri (among others) to run searches for criminal suspects and to "support operations." A whole lot of non-border states are allowing agencies to bypass internal restrictions on use of the tech.

And there's a whole lot of Clearview use. Too much, in fact, considering the number of agencies using this highly questionable product exceeds zero.

The US Air Force says it engaged in an "operational pilot" beginning in June 2020, utilizing Clearview to run searches on biometric information gathered with "mobile biometric devices, including phones."

The Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services also apparently used Clearview. The report says the HHS OIG "conducted an evaluation of the system in an attempt to identify unknown subjects of a criminal investigation." Experimentation, but with the added bonus of possibly infringing on an innocent person's life and liberty!

Also on the list are CBP, ICE, and US Secret Service. ICE appears to be the only agency actually purchasing Clearview licenses, spending a total of $214,000 in 2020. The CBP, however, is getting its Clearview for free, utilizing the New York State Intelligence Center's access to run searches. The Secret Service gave Clearview a test drive in 2019 but decided it wasn't worth buying.

The Department of the Interior says it has both stopped and started using Clearview. Under "Accessed commercial FRT [facial recognition technology] system, the DOI claims:

Interior uses Clearview AI to verify the identity of an individual involved in a crime and research information on a person of interest. Interior may submit photos (e.g., surveillance photos) for matching against the Clearview AI’s repository of facial images from open sources. U.S. Park Police reported it stopped using Clearview AI as of June 2020.

But under "New access to commercial FRT system," the DOI states:

Interior reported its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began using a trial version of Clearview AI in May 2020, and purchased an annual subscription in June 2020.

The DOI is both a current and former customer, depending on which component you speak to, apparently.

The DOJ is an apparent believer in the power of Clearview, providing access to the ATF, DEA, FBI, and US Marshals Service. But there must be a lot of sharing going on, because the DOJ only purchased $9,000-worth of licenses.

Interestingly, the DOJ also notes it received an upgrade from Axon, which provides body-worn cameras. Axon has apparently added a new feature to its product: "Facial Detection." Unlike facial recognition, the product does not search for faces to run against a biometric database. Instead, the system "reviews footage" to detect faces, which can then be marked for redaction.

This FRT-related expenditure is also interesting, suggesting the DOJ may actually be trying to quantify the effectiveness of body cameras when it comes to deterring officer misconduct.

DOJ reported that it awarded an $836,000 grant to the Police Foundation for the development of techniques to automate analysis of body worn camera audio and video data of police and community interactions. In particular, these techniques could (1) allow an evaluation of officers’ adherence to principles of procedural justice and (2) validate the ratings generated by the automated process using a randomized control trial comparing software ratings of videos to evaluations performed by human raters under conditions of high and low procedural justice.

Finally, there's this unnecessarily coy statement by the IRS about its use of commercial facial recognition systems.

A third-party vendor performed facial recognition searches on behalf of the IRS for domestic law enforcement purposes. Additional details on the search are sensitive.

Whatever. It's probably Clearview. And if it isn't, it probably will be at some point in the near future, given federal agencies' apparent comfort with deploying unproven, unvetted tech during criminal investigations.

The report is probably the most comprehensive account of facial recognition tech by the federal government we have to work with at the moment. It shows there's a lot of it being used, but it hasn't become completely pervasive. Yet. Most agencies use the tech to do nothing more than identify employees and prevent unauthorized access to sensitive areas. Some agencies are digging into the tech itself in hopes of improving it. But far too many are still using a product which has been marketed with false statements and has yet to have its accuracy tested by independent researchers. That's a huge problem, and, while it's not up to the GAO to fix it, the report should at least make legislators aware of an issue that needs to be addressed.

Filed Under: doi, doj, facial recognition, gao
Companies: clearview

NYPD Oversight Report Confirms NYPD Not Interested In Being Overseen

from the take-all-you-can,-give-nothing-back dept

New York City's Department of Investigation can only do so much. The rest is up to the NYPD. The DOI made 145 recommendations in 2018 -- covering everything from use of force reporting to sex crime investigations. To date, the NYPD has implemented less than half of those. It has completely rejected 31 recommendations, a third of those covering proposed changes to its use of force reporting.

Oversight is only as good as the agency being overseen. The NYPD doesn't care much for accountability. So, it's chosen to ignore the things it doesn't like and half-ass its way towards compliance with recommendations it feels it might be able to live with.

Most of the rejections come from changes to use of force reporting. The NYPD would prefer no use of force reporting. The DOI would prefer 100% accountability in this area. A "compromise" has been reached. From the report [PDF]:

Separate from T.R.I. forms, officers are also required to indicate the use of force on arrest reports. OIG-NYPD found that in at least 30% of the arrest reports with resisting arrest charges in the 2016 study period (and 55.9% in a 2017 sample), officers stated that “No” force was used but still filed a T.R.I. form affirming that the officer indeed used reportable force during the incident. This means that officers are underreporting force on arrest reports. This accuracy issue not only undermines the efficacy of future oversight audits, but risks engendering a false sense of compliance.

As was detailed in last year's report, this resulted in the NYPD claiming officers only used force in 1.3% of arrests, when it was clear the number was actually much higher.

The NYPD rejected completely any public reporting on use of force statistics, including the demographics of officers deploying force and of those who force was used against.

The bad news continues. The NYPD's sex crime division remains too understaffed to handle investigations. On top of that, the limited resources are prioritized badly, resulting in too little attention being paid to larger problems.

In late 2016, OIG-NYPD began tracking a troubling trend. While reported sex crimes—especially those where the perpetrator was known to the victim—were trending up, arrests were trending down. In early 2017, OIG-NYPD received credible complaints regarding dysfunction at the NYPD Special Victims Division (SVD) squads that investigate adult sex-crimes. OIG-NYPD then launched a full investigation of SVD, focusing on the units’ staffing resources.

[...]

the investigation also found that NYPD had understaffed and under-resourced SVD for at least the last nine years. As a result of understaffing, OIGNYPD’s investigation also found that NYPD had prioritized so-called “stranger rapes” and other more high-profile cases, while “acquaintance rape” and other investigations received less attention.

Many New Yorkers might like to know how much NYPD misconduct is costing them. The NYPD has vowed to be of no help on that issue, preferring to remain ignorant of the monetary damage its officers cause.

OIG-NYPD also found that, despite NYPD’s prior acknowledgement of the benefits of analyzing litigation data, NYPD had abandoned plans to use its early intervention system to track the number, types, and monetary outcomes of lawsuits filed against individual officers.

The middle finger to the public is extended further by the NYPD's rejections: any public reporting of lawsuits filed against the department or tracking of litigation to see what officer behavior problems might need to be addressed.

The shafting of the public continues with the NYPD's handling of complaints against officers and supervisors. If the NYPD isn't slow-walking investigations itself, its software will pitch in with the foot dragging.

On February 7, 2017, OIG-NYPD released a review of how NYPD tracks OG complaints as they move from NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau to the Office of the Chief of Department (OCD)’s Investigation Review Section (IRS). The investigation found inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the process, including outdated technology that is incompatible with other NYPD systems, and which slows the process for completing investigations.

The good news is the NYPD is using new software to track investigations as they move through the system. The bad news is everything else.

The NYPD claims it can process investigations in the 90-day timeframe allotted, rendering a papertrail for extended investigations unnecessary. As proof of this expeditious handling, the NYPD handed its oversight… nothing at all.

NYPD further asserts that allowing investigators to request extensions invites the possibility investigators may request such extensions more routinely and unnecessarily delay completion of the investigation within 90 days. However, when OIG-NYPD asked NYPD to run a report of how many 2018 cases were closed within 90 days, NYPD could not do so.

The NYPD is still "undecided" whether or not the public gets to know how many complaints have been filed against officers. Periodic reporting is still "under discussion" and it seems unlikely it will be moving past that point anytime soon.

The NYPD also promises to continue to surveil people participating in First Amendment-protected activity, like frequenting their house of worship or participating in protests. It rejected three of the DOI's five recommendations: written justification of investigations impacting First Amendment rights, documentation on confidential informants placed in Constitutionally-sensitive locations, and written guidelines setting standards for all phases of these investigations.

The NYPD argues the Handschu guidelines -- the ones it ignored for years while surveilling Muslims -- are more than up to the task of policing the police agency that won't police itself. Very reassuring.

The agency that has strongly resisted every attempt to control it continues to view itself as the final arbiter of police work. Outside opinions aren't welcomed, even as the NYPD insists its opinion on policework should be respected around the world. Without change, the aspects of the agency that are bad can only trend towards worse. It's clear from this report the NYPD feels it should answer to no one, not even the public signing its checks.

Filed Under: department of investigation, doi, nypd, oig, oversight