IBM recently made a surprising return to the facial recognition market, just three years after announcing that it would no longer work on the technology due to concerns about racial profiling, mass surveillance, and other human rights violations. In June 2020, amidst widespread Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s murder, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna wrote a letter to Congress stating that the company would no longer offer “general purpose” facial recognition technology. Krishna emphasized that IBM opposes the use of any technology, including facial recognition, for purposes that violate basic human rights and freedoms or go against the company’s values and principles.
IBM’s commitment to distancing itself from facial recognition and promoting ethical technology practices seemed firm. It not only reiterated its stance later in the year but also called for US export controls to address the potential misuse of facial recognition technology abroad. However, recent revelations indicate that IBM signed a £54.7 million ($69.8 million) contract with the British government to develop a national biometrics platform that includes a facial recognition function for immigration and law enforcement officials. This contract raises concerns about whether IBM is contradicting its own commitments to combat racial profiling and human rights violations associated with facial recognition technology.
According to documents reviewed by The Verge and Liberty Investigates, the contract involves initially developing a fingerprint matching capability, followed by the introduction of facial recognition for immigration purposes, and ultimately delivering a facial matching capability for law enforcement. The Home Office Biometrics Matcher Platform will enable officials to match photos of individuals against images stored in a database, known as a “one-to-many” matching system. Interestingly, IBM itself acknowledged in September 2020 that such matching systems are most likely to be used for mass surveillance, racial profiling, and other violations of human rights.
IBM’s spokesperson, Imtiaz Mufti, has denied any conflicts between IBM’s work on this contract and its 2020 commitments. Mufti claims that IBM no longer offers general-purpose facial recognition and reiterates the company’s opposition to the use of facial recognition for mass surveillance, racial profiling, or any human rights violations. He clarifies that the Home Office Biometrics Matcher Platform does not support face-in-a-crowd biometric usage, which is typically associated with video ingest capabilities required for mass surveillance. However, human rights campaigners argue that IBM’s involvement in this project goes against its stated commitments.
Related Post
Kojo Kyerewaa from Black Lives Matter UK criticizes IBM for prioritizing the Home Office contract over the memory of George Floyd and accuses the company of disregard for human rights. Matt Mahmoudi, a tech researcher at Amnesty International, emphasizes that global research has revealed that there is no application of one-to-many facial recognition that complies with human rights law. Accordingly, Mahmoudi calls on IBM and other companies to cease the sale and use of facial recognition tools and honor their previous commitments, especially in the context of law enforcement and immigration where the implications for rights are compounded.
Police use of facial recognition technology has faced criticism and legal challenges in both the US and the UK. In the UK, independent reports have questioned the legality and human rights implications of the London Metropolitan Police Service’s use of facial recognition, while the Court of Appeal ruled that South Wales Police breached privacy rights and equality laws with their own implementation. Other tech companies, such as Amazon and Microsoft, have imposed partial bans on the use of their facial recognition services for law enforcement. Amazon’s ban on police use of its Rekognition software has been extended indefinitely, while Microsoft refuses to sell facial recognition software to US police departments until national laws governing its use are introduced.
In response to inquiries about IBM’s involvement in the Home Office project, the UK Home Office has not issued any comments. This lack of response raises further questions about the justification and potential implications of using facial recognition technology in law enforcement and immigration contexts. Concerned individuals and organizations continue to advocate for the protection of human rights and the ethical use of technology, urging companies and governments alike to carefully consider the implications of implementing facial recognition systems.
