Wednesday, June 08, 2022

Would you be negligent if you failed to use facial recognition in appropriate circumstances? Blocking my face for PimEyes users does nothing to block all the other facial recognition vendors.

https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-privacy/pimeyes-face-search-engine-alarmingly-thorough-and-accurate-able-to-pick-faces-out-of-crowds/

PimEyes Face Search Engine Alarmingly Thorough and Accurate, Able To Pick Faces Out of Crowds

A new report by the New York Times takes the subscription-based face search engine PimEyes for a test run, and comes back with worrying results for personal privacy. A test conducted on a number of the paper’s reporters unearthed a surprisingly accurate collection of results including decades-old pictures, pictures in which the subject’s face was obscured, and even pictures in which they were in the midst of a blurry crowd.

PimEyes claims neutrality and that it is merely a “tool provider,” but the company’s business model raises questions. It offers “premium subscriptions” that run from $90 to $300 per month in price, which allow for requests that particular photos be excluded from the search results made available to all of the platform’s other users.





When is ‘no consent’ acceptable?

https://fpf.org/blog/new-report-on-limits-of-consent-in-south-koreas-data-protection-law/

NEW REPORT ON LIMITS OF “CONSENT” IN SOUTH KOREA’S DATA PROTECTION LAW

Today, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) and Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) – as part of their ongoing joint research project:From Consent-Centric Data Protection Frameworks to Responsible Data Practices and Privacy Accountability in Asia Pacific” – are publishing a second report in their series of detailed jurisdiction reports on the status of “consent” and alternatives to consent as lawful bases for processing personal data in Asia Pacific (APAC) – this time focusing on South Korea.

This report provides a detailed overview of relevant laws and regulations in South Korea, including:

  • notice and consent requirements for processing personal data;

  • the status of alternative legal bases for processing personal data which permit processing of personal data without consent if the data controller undertakes a risk impact assessment (e.g., legitimate interests); and

  • statutory bases for processing personal data without consent and exceptions or derogations from consent requirements in laws and regulations.

The first report focused on the People’s Republic of China and explained how the country’s data protection framework has evolved over the past few years from a consent-centric model to one which provides various alternatives to consent in a GDPR-type model.

The findings of this report and others in the series will inform a forthcoming comparative review paper which will make detailed recommendations for legal convergence in APAC.





Coming soon to a state near me?

https://www.pogowasright.org/poland-establishes-terrifying-pregnancy-register-after-banning-almost-all-abortions/

Poland Establishes ‘Terrifying’ Pregnancy Register After Banning Almost All Abortions

Julia Conley reports:

A new government database tracking people’s pregnancies in Poland is sparking fears that medical data will be used to prosecute women who obtain abortion care in other countries or by getting abortion pills through the mail, and potentially to target women who have miscarriages.
Health Minister Adam Niedzielski approved an ordinance last Friday expanding the kind of information that can be stored in a central database on patients, including allergies, blood type, and pregnancy status.
Tracking pregnancies in the country is necessary, Niedzielski claimed, so doctors know if a woman shouldn’t receive certain medications or x-rays.
But in a country that banned abortion care in almost all cases in 2020—with exceptions theoretically in the case of health risks to the pregnant woman or of a pregnancy that results from rape or incest—Parliament member Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz said Tuesday that the register would be used to “persecute and control Polish women.”

Read more at CommonDreams.



(Related) Another surveillance of ‘something we don’t like?’

https://www.pogowasright.org/met-police-profiling-children-on-a-large-scale-documents-show/

Met police profiling children ‘on a large scale’, documents show

Wil Crisp and Vikram Dodd report:

Metropolitan police documents say the force has been collecting “children’s personal data” from social media sites as part of a project to carry out “profiling on a large scale”.
The Met says the scheme, known as Project Alpha, helps fight serious violence, with the intelligence gathered identifying offenders and securing the removal of videos glorifying stabbings and shootings from platforms such as YouTube.
The unit, comprising more than 30 staff and launched in 2019 with Home Office funding, scours social media sites looking at drill music videos and other content.

Read more at The Guardian.



(Related) What could you learn from my DNA? Targeted viruses?

https://www.pogowasright.org/uk-genetic-paparazzi-are-right-around-the-corner-and-courts-arent-ready-to-confront-the-legal-quagmire-of-dna-theft/

UK: Genetic paparazzi are right around the corner, and courts aren’t ready to confront the legal quagmire of DNA theft

Liza Vertinsky and Yaniv Heled write:

Every so often stories of genetic theft, or extreme precautions taken to avoid it, make headline news. So it was with a picture of French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin sitting at opposite ends of a very long table after Macron declined to take a Russian PCR COVID-19 test. Many speculated that Macron refused due to security concerns that the Russians would take and use his DNA for nefarious purposes. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz similarly refused to take a Russian PCR COVID-19 test.
While these concerns may seem relatively new, pop star celebrity Madonna has been raising alarm bells about the potential for nonconsensual, surreptitious collection and testing of DNA for over a decade. She has hired cleaning crews to sterilize her dressing rooms after concerts and requires her own new toilet seats at each stop of her tours.
At first, Madonna was ridiculed for having DNA paranoia. But as more advanced, faster and cheaper genetic technologies have reached the consumer realm, these concerns seem not only reasonable, but justified.

Read more at Inforrm





From sanctions to oblivion?

https://www.engadget.com/ibm-pulls-out-of-russia-terminates-workforce-213043951.html

IBM begins laying off its entire Russian workforce

The company suspended operations back in March but kept employees on the payroll.

US sanctions on Russian banks have made it harder for the company to pay its employees in the country, Reuters reported last month.



(Related)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-08/microsoft-slashes-russia-operations-after-war-clouds-outlook

Microsoft Slashes Russia Operations After War Clouds Outlook

In March, the company suspended new sales of products and services in Russia but continued to support existing customers and maintain offices there.





My AI is following this case closely. Asks if there should be a jury of AI peers?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/federal-circuit-panel-balks-at-accepting-ai-as-inventor

Federal Circuit Panel Balks at Accepting AI as Inventor

A Federal Circuit panel homed in on the question of how to define “inventor” and “individual” in a test case for artificial intelligence inventorship, drawing skepticism from at least two judges.

The term “individual” as used in the Patent Act should be interpreted broadly, extending to artificial intelligence machines such as DABUS, which computer scientist Stephen Thaler listed as the inventor on two patent applications, Ryan Abbott, a partner at Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan LLP, argued to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday. Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Circuit Judge Richard G. Taranto centered their questions on how to plainly define “individual,” hesitating at the notion of zero human involvement in the creation of AI-generated inventions.

Taranto noted that in some cases it would be “odd” to list an AI as an inventor. Artificial intelligence refers to a capability, he said, citing dictionary definitions.

Stark noted that the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mohamed v. Palestinian Auth. found that individual means natural person, “unless of course there’s some contrary indication,” he said.

Abbott said he wasn’t aware of any case that has interpreted the term more recently. Reading individual to mean natural person, though, wouldn’t be consistent with Congress’s intent in passing the Patent Act, Abbott argued.

Congress passed the Patent Act to encourage innovation, not to inhibit it,” Abbott said. “Here, ‘individual’ needs a broader meaning as an inventor.”

Moore and Taranto questioned Barghaan on whether the person who creates the code that programs the computer to then create a genetic sequence, a vaccine, or another invention would be the inventor. Taranto said the panel is not going to resolve the questions of whether a programmer is an inventor in those cases, but asked about what issues arise under those circumstances.

Barghaan argreed that Thaler didn’t have any involvement in the concept creation of the inventions DABUS produced, which is why those inventions aren’t patentable, he said. Listing the programmer as an inventor also “opens a Pandora’s Box” of issues, Barghaan said.

The case is Thaler v. Vidal, Fed. Cir., 21-2347.


No comments: