UK Parliamentary Committee Calls For The End Of Facial Recognition Tech By The UK Government

from the excellent-points-that-will-almost-certainly-be-ignored dept

The UK government already has the cameras -- thousands of them. So, why not add facial recognition to the mix? A number of UK law enforcement agencies already have. UK police forces compiled a legally-questionable database of 18 million face photos and went to work.

Nobody did well. Failure after failure followed the rollout, with the London Metro police repeatedly claiming the "worst of the worst" title for itself. Despite this resounding lack of success, the Home Office feels the UK needs more failure, not less.

As if further indication was needed of Britain's slide into a surveillance state, Home Secretary Sajid Javid has backed highly flawed police trials of facial recognition cameras.

Speaking at the launch of tools to be used to combat online child abuse, he said it was right for forces to "be on top of the latest technology".

"I back the police in looking at technology and trialling it," he told the BBC. Javid added that "different types of facial recognition technology is being trialled especially by the Met at the moment and I think it's right they look at that."

Is it though? Is it "right" to be subjecting UK citizens to faulty hardware and software for the sole reason of… I don't know… feeling like you're staying on top of technological developments? Take a look at that last word. The tech is still developing. Right now, it's abysmal. It may improve, but allowing the construction of massive databases and turning the nation's residents into lab rats isn't the answer.

You know who thinks this rollout of facial recognition tech is a bad idea? Awkwardly enough, it's the UK government. A report [PDF] by the government's Science and Technology Committee says the tech is faulty, it's being deployed with virtually no oversight, and the government it reports to refuses to believe there's a problem.

From the summary of the Committee's report:

We reiterate our recommendation from our 2018 Report that automatic facial recognition should not be deployed until concerns over the technology’s effectiveness and potential bias have been fully resolved. We call on the Government to issue a moratorium on the current use of facial recognition technology and no further trials should take place until a legislative framework has been introduced and guidance on trial protocols, and an oversight and evaluation system, has been established.

It's not like there's no existing model the government could use to craft its own policies. The Scottish government has already engaged in public consultation and has published an impact assessment on biometric collections and surveillance. The English government has done nothing. It has promised to "review" the tech's rollout but, to date, hasn't moved forward with any meaningful examination of the issues raised by the deployment of automatic facial recognition. The Home Office thinks a seven-year-old law -- the Protections of Freedoms Act -- covers all the bases. The Committee rather harshly sets the record straight:

The Government’s 27-page biometrics strategy was not worth the five-year wait. Arguably it is not a ‘strategy’ at all: it lacks a coherent, forward looking vision and fails to address the legislative vacuum that the Home Office has allowed to emerge around new biometrics. Ultimately, it represents a missed opportunity for the Government to set out a principles-based approach for the use and oversight of second generation biometrics. Simply establishing an oversight board, with no legal powers, is not good enough given the highly intrusive nature of the technologies. Further, the development and use of biometric technologies must be transparent and involve as much public awareness and engagement as possible, to ensure that there is public trust in the technologies. Unfortunately, public engagement has been sorely missing from the Home Office’s approach to date. Its ongoing ‘consultation’ on the governance of biometrics has no published terms of reference and there is no obvious way for interested parties to participate. This is not good enough.

The Home Office continues to believe the nothing it's doing is good enough. It has repeatedly defended the tech and brushed off the concerns of numerous entities about the lack of legal framework or public discussion, along with its documented failure rate.

To make matters worse, UK law enforcement agencies continue to ignore guidance on retention of facial images it has collected over the past few years. There are now 23 million images sitting in police databases. Those not needed by law enforcement are supposed to be deleted after six years. This isn't happening. Instead, agencies are acting as though they can hang onto all photos in their databases indefinitely. The Committee says this is not only the government again ignoring its obligations, but this failure possibly violates the law.

Since the Committee published its Report in 2018, progress has stalled on ensuring that the custody images of unconvicted individuals are weeded and deleted. It is unclear whether police forces are unaware of the requirement to review custody images every six years, or if they are simply ‘struggling to comply’. What is clear, however, is that they have not been afforded any earmarked resources to assist with the manual review and weeding process. The Minister previously promised improvements to IT systems that would have facilitated automatic deletion. Such improvements now appear to have been delayed indefinitely. As such, the burden remains on individuals to know that they have the right to request deletion of their image. As we stated in 2018, this approach is unacceptable and we agree with the Biometrics Commissioner that its lawfulness requires further assessment.

The Home Office is onboard with "further assessment." It just wants to take it as its own leisurely pace and discard any input from citizens or experts it doesn't like. As long as the government is free to ignore its own advisory committees, it will continue to subject citizens to faulty tech that contains the potential to wrongly deprive them of their freedom.

Filed Under: facial recognition, police, surveillance, uk, uk parliament

To Obtain Documents About Facebook Data-Sharing, UK Gov't Seizes And Detains A US Executive Working For A Different Company

from the Parliamentary-street-gang dept

Something strange and disturbing happened in the UK this weekend. That it targeted pariah du jour Facebook doesn't make it any less bizarre or worrisome.

The short story is this: peeved at being blown off repeatedly by Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook representatives, members of Parliament shook down an American third party for documents possibly related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The long story -- broken by Carole Cadwalladr of The Guardian -- fills in the details.

But first a little background: Six4Three, developers of a scuzzy app that scanned profiles for bikini photos, is currently suing Facebook for yanking its API access. The lawsuit has traveled from the federal court system to a California state court, where Six4Three is hoping for a ruling declaring Facebook's actions to be a violation of various state-level competitive business laws.

During the course of this suit -- which was filed in January 2017 -- Six4Three has obtained internal Facebook documents through discovery. These documents may contain info related to Facebook's data-sharing and data-selling practices, which could possibly include its deals with Cambridge Analytica.

Somehow, members of Parliament found out one of Six4Three's lawyers execs was in London. So, this happened:

Damian Collins, the chair of the culture, media and sport select committee, invoked a rare parliamentary mechanism to compel the founder of a US software company, Six4Three, to hand over the documents during a business trip to London. In another exceptional move, parliament sent a serjeant at arms to his hotel with a final warning and a two-hour deadline to comply with its order. When the software firm founder failed to do so, it’s understood he was escorted to parliament. He was told he risked fines and even imprisonment if he didn’t hand over the documents.

Let's break this down: the UK government wants answers from Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Since Facebook hasn't been compliant, the UK government feels justified in taking documents obtained through discovery in a US lawsuit from an American lawyer currently suing Facebook… just because he happened to roam into its jurisdiction.

This is insane.

As an added twist, the documents the lawyer was forced to turn over are currently under seal. That means no one in the US other than the litigants and the judge have access to them. At least that was the case until Parliament's bizarre, heavy-handed move.

Facebook has responded with some fluff about Six4Three's creepy app (not really relevant) and a reminder that the documents seized from its opponent's lawyer are, at this point, privileged information. MP Collins has responded with a shrug, reminding Facebook's legal rep that the UK is not California so who cares what a local court has to say about who can see what documents.

It's unlikely the California court will find Six4Three's lawyer in contempt for being pretty much arrested and threatened with indefinite imprisonment if he didn't hand over documents it has ordered sealed. Facebook has asked that no members of Parliament view the documents until it has heard back from the California court. This has been greeted with a different kind of contempt:

If you can't read/see the tweet, it's from MP Ian Lucas and reads:

Facebook said: “The materials obtained by the DCMS committee are subject to a protective order of the San Mateo Superior Court restricting their disclosure. We have asked the DCMS committee to refrain from reviewing them and to return them to counsel or to Facebook.” Too late.

Parliament may now have some of the answers Facebook has refused to provide. But was it worth it? The UK government acted more like an authoritarian dictatorship than a free country with this move. It detained a lawyer who didn't even work for Facebook and threatened him with jail time if he didn't turn over documents a judge in his home country had ordered sealed. The next few days should see some interesting iterations of the "ends justifies the means" pontificating from every Parliament member supportive of this damaging move.

Filed Under: api, california, damian collins, due process, mark zuckerberg, privacy, sealed documents, uk, uk parliament
Companies: facebook, six4three

UK Lawmaker Who Quizzed Facebook On Its Privacy Practices Doesn't Seem To Care Much About His Own Website's Privacy Practices

from the just-sayin' dept

Jason Smith, over at Indivigital has been doing quite a job of late in highlighting the hypocrisy of European lawmakers screaming at internet companies over their privacy practices, while doing little on their own websites of what they're demanding of the companies. He pointed out the EU Commission itself appeared to be violating the GDPR, leading it to claim that it was exempt. And now he's got a new story up, pointing out that the website of UK Parliament member, Damian Collins, who is the chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee... does not appear to have a privacy policy in place, even though he took the lead in quizzing Facebook about its own privacy practices and its lack of transparency on how it treats user data.

Now, there are those of us who believe that privacy policies are a dumb idea that don't do anything to protect people's privacy -- but if you're going to be grandstanding about how Facebook is not transparent enough about how it handles user data, it seems like you should be a bit transparent yourself. Smith's article details how many other members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee don't seem to be living up to their own standards. They may have been attacking social media sites... but were happy to include tracking widgets from those very same social media sites on their own sites.

Julie4Sunderland.co.uk is maintained on behalf of Julie Elliott MP, a fellow member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It serves third-party content from Facebook and upwards of 18 cookies on visitor’s computers.

Likewise, websites of fellow members Jo Stevens, Simon Hart, Julian Knight, Ian Lucas, Rebecca Pow and Giles Watling are also collecting data on behalf of the social networking giant from their visitors.

The websites of Julian Knight, Ian Lucas, Giles Watling and Rebecca Pow also collect data on visitors for Twitter. Meanwhile, Rebecca Pow’s website sets third-party cookies from YouTube.com.

Damian Collins’s website features a cookie message however the link in the message takes the user to a contact page that contains a form that requests the user’s name and email address.

The page on which the form resides contains a link that activates a modal window and encourages the user to sign-up for Damian Collins’s email newsletter.

Moreover, the Parliamentary page for the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee is also setting and serving third-party cookies and content from Twitter.

Now, you can reasonably argue that the websites of politicians aren't the same as a social media giant used by like half of the entire world. And there is a point there. But it's also worth noting that it's amazing how accusatory politicians and others get towards social media sites when they don't seem to live up to the same standards on their own websites. Maybe Facebook should do better -- but the very actions of these UK Parliament members, at the very least, suggests that even they recognize what they're demanding of Facebook is more cosmetic "privacy theater" than anything serious.

Filed Under: damian collins, privacy, privacy policies, uk, uk parliament

Unimpressed, UK's Parliamentary Committee For Business Calls For 'Evidence-Based Approach' To TAFTA/TTIP

from the making-astrology-look-respectable dept

Given the magnitude of the effect that TAFTA/TTIP could have on the economies and daily life of both the US and EU, it is surprising that there has not been more analysis of its likely impact. In particular, you would have thought that the governments who favor it would have made great efforts to deploy plenty of evidence supporting the agreement. Instead, the European Commission simply repeats the same set of figures from the 2013 analysis that it commissioned from the London-based CEPR group (pdf), while the US side seems to think even one study is one too many.

Analyses from the public's political representatives are also surprisingly thin on the ground. That makes a new report from one of the UK Parliament's specialist committees, which are made up of current MPs, particularly welcome. It comes from the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee, so you might expect it to be really upbeat about the TTIP negotiations. Instead, it is pretty unimpressed by the debate so far:

The BIS Committee finds that while a lack of detail on negotiations makes it difficult to assess the benefits of TTIP, all involved in the debate -- campaigners, lobbyists, business groups, the UK Government and the European Commission -- must ensure they take an evidence-based approach when assessing TTIP’s potential.

The report focuses on two main areas: TTIP's economic benefits and the corporate sovereignty provisions, also known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). As it notes, the main figures used time and again in support of the trade deal come from the European Commission's CEPR report. Leaving aside its many debatable assumptions, one key fact that has emerged is that the core prediction for the best-case scenario -- US and EU economies to grow by 0.4% and 0.5% respectively as a result of TTIP -- refers to cumulative growth by 2027, and therefore amounts to around 0.05% extra GDP per year, on average. Regarding this fact, the economist Dean Baker wrote: "As growth policy, this trade deal doesn't pass the laugh test." On this issue, the Committee commented:

When we challenged the [UK Trade] Minister on the accuracy of the estimated benefits of TTIP, he appeared to agree that they should not be taken as fact. In doing so he quoted JK Galbraith, who said that the only purpose of economic forecasts was to make astrology look respectable.

The Committee was equally unimpressed with the arguments in favor of including a corporate sovereignty chapter:

We have yet to be convinced of the need for ISDS provisions in TTIP. The UK Government and the EU must demonstrate that the advanced legal institutions of the EU and the US cannot protect foreign investors before any ISDS is considered in the TTIP.

Again, coming from a naturally pro-business Parliamentary Committee, that's a pretty damning comment. It shows just how much work the US and EU governments need to do in order to convince people -- even those favorably inclined to the idea -- that TAFTA/TTIP is worth bothering with at all.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: evidence-based approach, tafta, trade agreements, ttip, uk parliament

Committee That Grilled Guardian Editor Over Snowden Documents Won't Get To Question Intelligence Boss

from the of-course-not dept

We recently wrote about the ridiculous performance put on by the UK Parliament in quizzing the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, concerning the legality of reporting on the Snowden leaks. Now, it appears that the same committee sought to hold a hearing with the head of the British MI5 intelligence agency, Andrew Parker, in order to see if he could back up the claims that the Guardian's reporting had put UK citizens in danger. However, that's not happening. UK officials won't let Parker testify in front of the same committee. Why? Because.

The home secretary, Theresa May, told the home affairs committee chairman, Keith Vaz, that she had rejected the request for the spy chief to give evidence because his appearance would "duplicate" the existing oversight provided by the prime ministerially appointed intelligence and security committee.

And, indeed, it is true that the intelligence and security committee held a hearing on the topic not so long ago -- but, like the Congressional counterparts, it was almost entirely softballs allowing them to spew rhetoric, rather than answer serious questions concerning the intelligence community.

Even worse, it appears that the UK leadership is working extra hard to keep trying to pass a hot potato to make sure no one has to testify on this particular issue:

A similar request for Kim Darroch, the national security adviser, to give evidence to the committee's inquiry into counter-terrorism was also rejected in a letter from David Cameron. He said "it was not a good idea" because Darroch's role focused on providing private advice to him and the national security council and his appearance would "set a difficult precedent".

The prime minister said it should be left to the home secretary to give evidence to the MPs on their concerns about counter-terrorism and the Guardian's disclosures of mass digital surveillance by GCHQ and the US national security agency.

The decision prompted a furious reaction from Vaz, who said: "The prime minister has suggested that the home secretary should come before us to answer our questions and Theresa May is suggesting that it is a matter for the intelligence and security committee. We cannot play pass the parcel on the issue of accountability on these important issues.

While the US process has been something of a joke, at least Congress has been able to get James Clapper, Keith Alexander and others out to testify a bunch of times on these issues. Some in the UK, however, would apparently like to sweep the whole issue under the rug.

Filed Under: andrew parker, edward snowden, mi5, oversight, theresa may, uk parliament

UK Parliament Makes A Mockery Of Itself Interrogating Guardian Editor

from the sad dept

The UK Parliament is presenting itself as a complete joke. Rather than looking into controlling the GCHQ (the UK's equivalent to the NSA), it has instead held a hearing to interrogate and threaten Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger for actually reporting on the Snowden leak documents and revealing the widespread abuses of the intelligence community. The hearing included the insulting and ridiculous question: "do you love this country?"

Committee chair, Keith Vaz: Some of the criticisms against you and the Guardian have been very, very personal. You and I were both born outside this country, but I love this country. Do you love this country?

Alan Rusbridger: We live in a democracy and most of the people working on this story are British people who have families in this country, who love this country. I'm slightly surprised to be asked the question but, yes, we are patriots and one of the things we are patriotic about is the nature of democracy, the nature of a free press and the fact that one can, in this country, discuss and report these things.

Perhaps equally ridiculous: after UK Prime Minister David Cameron ordered the destruction of Guardian hard drives, urged the Parliament to start this very investigation and flat out threatened news publications for reporting on government abuse, folks in Parliament have the gall to suggest that it's Rusbridger who broke the law in sharing some of the Snowden docs with the NY Times? Maybe if Cameron hadn't done everything he could to try to stifle a free UK press, the Guardian wouldn't have felt the need to share documents with a competitor.

Conservative MP Michael Ellis: Mr Rusbridger, you authorised files stolen by [National Security Agency contractor Edward] Snowden which contained the names of intelligence staff to be communicated elsewhere. Yes or no?

Rusbridger: Well I think I've already dealt with that.

Ellis: Well if you could just answer the question.

Rusbridger: I think it's been known for six months that these documents contained names and that I shared them with the New York Times.

Ellis: Do you accept that that is a criminal offence under section 58(a) of the Terrorism Act, 2000?

Rusbridger: You may be a lawyer, Mr Ellis, I'm not.

And from there it took a turn to the bizarre as Ellis started talking about how Rusbridger might reveal that GCHQ agents were gay. I'm not kidding.

Ellis: Secret and top-secret documents. And do you accept that the information contained personal information that could lead to the identity even of the sexual orientation of persons working within GCHQ?

Rusbridger: The sexual orientation thing is completely new to me. If you could explain how we've done that then I'd be most interested.

Ellis: In part, from your own newspaper on 2 August, which is still available online, because you refer to the fact that GCHQ has its own Pride group for staff and I suggest to you that the data contained within the 58,000 documents also contained data that allowed your newspaper to report that information. It is therefore information now that is not any longer protected under the laws and that jeopardises those individuals, does it not?

Rusbridger: You've completely lost me Mr Ellis. There are gay members of GCHQ, is that a surprise?

Ellis: It's not amusing Mr Rusbridger. They shouldn't be outed by you and your newspaper.

[Brief inaudible exchange in which both men are talking]

Rusbridger: The notion of the existence of a Pride group within GCHQ, actually if you go to the Stonewall website you can find the same information there. I fail to see how that outs a single member of GCHQ.

Ellis: You said it was news to you, so you know about the Stonewall website, so it's not news to you. It was in your newspaper. What about the fact that GCHQ organised trips to Disneyland in Paris, that's also been printed in your newspaper, does that mean if you knew that, information including the family details of members of GCHQ is also within the 58,000 documents – the security of which you have seriously jeopardised?

Rusbridger: Again, your references are lost to me. The fact that there was a family outing from GCHQ to Disneyland … [CUT OFF]

There was much more in the hearing, with multiple UK members of parliament making statements that suggest that they are ignorant of a variety of things, including how encryption works and the nature of a free and open press.

But, really, just the fact that they're spending time investigating Rusbridger in the first place, rather than looking more closely at what the GCHQ is doing, makes a complete mockery of the UK Parliament.

Filed Under: alan rusbridger, free press, gchq, journalism, keith vaz, michael ellis, surveillance, uk, uk parliament

UK Parliament Asks For Public Comment On Six IP Policy Questions

from the get-your-thoughts-in dept

It appears that the UK Parliament is asking for thoughts from the public on six key policy questions around intellectual property. You can be assured that the large lobbying organizations will make their voices heard, but it would be great if others in the UK, who have a more modern and nuanced view of what's happening around intellectual property issues, would make their voices heard as well:

1) What should the objective of IP policy be?

2) How well co-ordinated is the development of IP policy across government? Is IP policy functioning effectively on a cross-departmental basis? What changes to the machinery of government do you believe would deliver better IP policy outcomes?

3) There have been numerous attempts to update the IP framework in the light of changes brought about by the digital environment. How successful have these been and what lessons can be learnt from these for policy developments?

4) How effective is the Intellectual Property Office and what should its priorities be?

5) UK IP policy sits within European and supranational agreements. How should the UK government co-ordinate its policy at an international level and what should it do to promote IP abroad to encourage economic growth? Do you have examples of good and poor practice in this area?

6) Protecting, and enforcement of, the IP framework often sits in very different departments to those that develop IP policy and those that have responsibility for the industries most affected. What impact does this have and how can it be improved?

If you do decide to respond, obviously take time to carefully detail your position and back it up with facts and analysis, rather than any sort of emotional response. The details of how to respond to the request can be found in the official announcement (pdf) of this inquiry. It's worth noting that the group organizing this does appear to come at these questions from an already biased position -- in that the person collecting these responses works for "the Alliance Against IP Theft." So, you're already dealing with someone who falsely defines infringement as theft. That's all the more reason to be careful, thorough and detailed in any response.

Filed Under: comment, copyright, policy, uk, uk parliament