Privacy Advocates, Industry to Spar Over Biometric Industry Group’s Best Practices at Tuesday NTIA Meeting
Expect privacy advocates to push back against a biometric industry group’s best practices at Tuesday’s NTIA-facilitated facial recognition code of conduct multistakeholder meeting. The International Biometrics and Identification Association (IBIA) submitted its proposed privacy best practices to the NTIA last week (http://bit.ly/1lkceiP). Stakeholders received an email with the document Friday and privacy advocates took issue with it. An agenda distributed Monday blocked out the first 80 minutes of the meeting for discussion about the document.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"It was much more extreme than I expected,” American Civil Liberties Union Legislative Director Chris Calabrese told us. “Their line in the sand seems to be, ‘We have the right to know who you are’ -- full stop.” Carl Szabo, policy counsel at e-commerce industry group NetChoice, saw the document as a “a great basis on which we can build a lot of our discussion at the NTIA process.” It gives the group a first major document to test on various facial recognition use cases, Szabo told us. Previously, stakeholders have submitted only high-level principles to guide a code of conduct (CD May 20 p13). IBIA didn’t comment.
The document delineated best practices for commercial applications of biometric technology. It stressed the need to protect data commensurate with the risks of that data being abused. Biometric technology is a privacy-enhancing mechanism, it said, arguing numerous identification and verification uses do not infringe one’s right to privacy. “The pervasive privacy risk in our society is the result of the advent of the digital age and big data and is completely independent of biometric technology, let alone a single modality,” it said.
For Calabrese, the tone was surprising and not consistent with what IBIA had been saying in meetings till now. One line, in particular, stuck out, he said: “Anonymity and privacy are not synonymous terms. The former is forfeited if one chooses to live in society."
"That is just a breathtaking, shocking statement,” Calabrese said. “That is one short step from, ‘We have the right to watch you all the time.'” And it’s distinct from the position major companies like Google and Facebook have staked out on facial recognition technology, he said. Both companies have promoted either opt-in policies for facial recognition or simply limited its implementation, he said.
Szabo agreed with the distinction, but didn’t think the schism would hinder the talks. Google and Facebook, both NetChoice members, did not comment. A variety of stakeholder input is vital “to engender more confidence in the final document,” Szabo told us. Privacy advocates also have a spectrum of stances on facial recognition use, he said: “For us, it’s about finding that middle ground."
Calabrese and Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeff Chester objected to IBIA’s claim that it’s “impractical” to get opt-in consent using facial recognition technology for individuals entering buildings. Prior meetings have explored how an opt-in mechanism might work, Calabrese said. An opt-in focus in this scenario is misguided, Szabo countered. “It’s more important to give users the opportunity to control the sharing of their information with someone who otherwise wouldn’t have access to it.”
The debates will dominate Tuesday’s meeting, said several people. “Maybe this is an opportunity for industry to talk to each other and figure out where they are,” Calabrese said. Szabo said: “You can create hypotheticals till the cows come home, but it’s the identification of real harms” that is most important.