CDT Comments to DHS’ Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Council on Facial Recognition Privacy in Draft Report
CDT respectfully submits these comments in response to the request for public comment from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Council (DPIAC) on its draft report Privacy Recommendations in Connection with the Use of Facial Recognition Technology.
In this case, a very limited tasking from the DHS Privacy Office to the DPIAC has resulted in a very limited set of recommendations. The tasking, and the DPIAC report, do not grapple with the glaring reality that Congress has not authorized Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to employ facial recognition technologies against U.S. citizens, but CBP is doing it nonetheless. Facial recognition technologies have also been shown to have inaccuracies, to result in discriminatory treatment of people with dark skin, and, when authorized to be used in a limited context, to spread to other contexts without adequate scrutiny.
Facial recognition technology may prove to be a useful tool for law enforcement like CBP, however there are other significant associated privacy and civil liberties concerns abound. As CBP acknowledged, “facial recognition poses a unique set of privacy issues. Facial images can be captured at a distance, covertly, and without consent.” Safeguards are needed to prevent abuse. DHS failed to take advantage of the opportunity to task DPIAC with engaging with and provide guidance on these important issues.
Our comments on this report center on four points that highlight our broader concerns with CBP’s use of facial recognition technology: 1) CBP has exceeded its legal mandate by employing facial recognition technology on U.S. citizens; 2) Facial recognition technology is discriminatory and inaccurate; 3) The biometric entry-exit system is prone to mission creep; and 4) Congressional oversight and legislation is needed to address these problems.
Coalition Urges Senate Not to Let Companies Waive Financial Regulations for AI
CDT joined AI Now Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, and several organizations dedicated to tech policy, consumer protection, and civil rights in a letter to Senate leadership and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee opposing the “AI Innovation Labs” language in Sec. 10509 of the CLARITY Act.
As concern about risks and harms related to AI systems continue to grow, a growing chorus of policymakers, industry leaders, and advocates have called for independent AI assessments. This explainer provides an overview of recent proposals for third-party assessment in the United States, including state and federal legislation, executive actions, and industry proposals.
Having third parties assess AI systems might seem like common sense, but crafting effective policies toward this goal can be devilishly tricky. A poorly-constructed ecosystem for third-party assessment could easily fail to consider the most consequential mechanisms of risk, neglect the AI harms that most impact people, or do more to protect AI companies than people.
Not All Guardrails Are Created Equal: Comparing Content Safety and Copyright Filtering
As courts and policymakers work through questions about chatbot liability, they should be wary of analogies that flatten meaningful technical differences. Copyright filtering and safety intervention share real challenges around ambiguity and evasion, but they diverge in what each control must assess, how each manifests over the course of a conversation, and how much can be verified from the outside.
