BIG News: Atlan has been named a Leader in the Forrester Wave™: Enterprise Data Catalogs, Q3 2024!
Atlan received the HIGHEST score possible in 15 criteria, and the HIGHEST scores across all vendors in Current Offering and Strategy.
Full report: https://t.co/GiEbLg9aiT

— Atlan (@AtlanHQ) August 7, 2024

Unparalleled Partner in AI Data Governance

The Forrester report emphasizes Atlan’s role as an unparalleled partner for organizations focused on data democratization and AI-enhanced self-service to governed data. Atlan received the highest possible scores in 15 criteria, including data lineage, data privacy, and security.

“Forrester’s recognition of Atlan as a leader underscores our commitment to delivering value through AI-powered data catalogs,” – Prukalpa Sankar, co-founder of Atlan.

“We aim to empower data teams across industries with tools that enhance data understanding and governance.”

Key Strengths and Customer Satisfaction

Atlan’s AI-driven catalog and rapid value delivery were significant factors in its high scores. The company’s ability to address strategic customer needs through automation and personalized services was highly rated. According to Forrester, Atlan is “quickly outpacing established players by adeptly anticipating and addressing strategic customer needs through automation.”

Comprehensive AI and Data Governance Solutions

Atlan’s platform integrates complex datasets, governance, business insights, and AI enablement. Features such as AI/ML metadata, end-to-end data lineage, and personalized user experiences contribute to its leadership in the market. These tools help businesses manage and understand their data ecosystems effectively, offering context-aware relationship mapping, sophisticated workflows, and dynamic access controls.

Visionary Growth and Innovation

Atlan’s data governance and AI offerings have driven significant growth and customer acquisition. The company’s focus on advanced automation capabilities and customer needs has resulted in substantial revenue increases and high satisfaction rates.

“Atlan differentiates itself with a personalized, AI-driven catalog, providing quick value,” – Jayesh Chaurasia, Forrester analyst.

Rapid Revenue Growth and Industry Recognition

Experiencing more than 7x revenue growth over the past two years, Atlan’s market presence is expanding rapidly. The company’s recent $105 million Series C funding round and 400% enterprise sales growth reflect the strong demand for its AI data readiness and governance solutions. Forrester’s recognition comes during this period of enormous growth and innovation for Atlan.

What Lies Ahead for Enterprise Data Catalogs?

Atlan’s recognition provokes thought about the future of data governance and AI integration. How will these technologies evolve, and what role will Atlan play in this landscape? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Photo by Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash

The post Atlan Recognized as Leader in The Forrester Wave™ for Enterprise Data Catalogs, Q3 2024 first appeared on Tech Insight.

As the European Parliament adopts the Artificial Intelligence Act, a pioneering legislation emerges from the realms of what once was the domain of science fiction. This act, which garners overwhelming support, establishes a framework that not only safeguards general-purpose artificial intelligence but also imposes significant limitations on the use of biometric identification systems by law enforcement, effectively bans social scoring, and prohibits AI systems designed to manipulate or exploit user vulnerabilities. In doing so, it aims to ensure the safety and compliance of AI applications with fundamental rights, while simultaneously fostering innovation.

A New Frontier for AI: MEPs Set the Stage

With an impressive tally of votes, the Parliament’s decision underscores a commitment to protect fundamental rights, democracy, the rule of law, and environmental sustainability from the potential risks posed by high-risk AI systems. The legislation categorizes AI based on its potential risks and impacts, echoing MEPs’ vision of a balanced yet innovative future for AI in Europe.

From Silver Screen to Legal Provisions

Cinema has long explored the ramifications of artificial intelligence, with movies like Minority Report and The Terminator offering a glimpse into potential futures shaped by advanced technologies. These films, while fictional, highlight the ethical dilemmas and societal challenges that come with AI, challenges that the EU seeks to address through this legislation. By drawing parallels between these cinematic narratives and the real-world legislative efforts, we’re reminded of the importance of preemptive measures in the realm of AI.

The PreCrime arrest scene in Minority Report, strikingly visualizes the moral and ethical dilemmas posed by the use of predictive technologies in law enforcement. As officers apprehend individuals for crimes they have yet to commit, the film probes deep into the implications of sacrificing personal freedom for the promise of security. This scene serves as a powerful narrative tool to discuss the balance between preemptive measures in public safety and the fundamental rights of individuals, mirroring the concerns addressed by the European Parliament’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which seeks to navigate the delicate balance between innovation and ethical governance in AI applications.

Safeguards and Exemptions: A Balanced Approach

The Act introduces clear obligations for high-risk AI systems, emphasizing the need for transparency, accuracy, and human oversight. It makes exceptions for the use of biometric identification by law enforcement in narrowly defined, exhaustively listed situations, reflecting a nuanced approach to balancing safety and innovation. This section of the legislation is particularly reminiscent of the debates around surveillance and autonomy depicted in dystopian films, underscoring the real-world relevance of these discussions.

The Path Forward: Innovation Within Bounds

Quotes from MEPs Brando Benifei and Dragos Tudorache during the plenary debate highlight the EU’s commitment to leading the way in responsible AI development. Their remarks reflect a deep understanding of the dual nature of AI as both a tool for unprecedented opportunities and a potential source of risk. As Europe embarks on this legislative journey, it positions itself as a beacon of innovation, guided by ethical principles and a respect for human dignity.

Share Your Thoughts

As we stand at the cusp of a new era in artificial intelligence regulation, it’s crucial to engage in dialogue about the path forward. The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act serves as a starting point for discussions on how we can harness the benefits of AI while mitigating its risks. I invite you to share your thoughts and perspectives in the comments below. How do you view the balance between innovation and regulation in the age of AI? What lessons can we draw from both real-world policies and the fictional worlds of cinema to navigate the future of artificial intelligence responsibly?

Photo by Marius Oprea on Unsplash

The post The Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Society in the Wake of Europe’s Landmark AI Act first appeared on Tech Insight.

DABUS Loses AI-generated Image Copyright and Patent Claims

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that only work with human authors can be copyrighted. The Copyright Office had rejected an application made by computer scientist Dr Stephen Thaler for his system, DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience).

He also just lost out on some bids for US patents, for features he claims are original to DABUS. It’s a similar story with his patent applications in other countries. His lawyer, Ryan Abbott expressed disappointment at the copyright ruling and said they would appeal.

Are Any AI-Generated Images Okay?

It’s an ongoing debate, whether AI-generated images should be used. In the wrong hands some wonder whether they could be used to spread misinformation or in scams, similar to the fears around deep fakes.

An artist who uses Midjourney as part of their creative process also lost out on a copyright application recently. Meanwhile, several lawsuits are going through the courts about copyrighted work being used to train AI-models. It’s a deeply complicated area, with so many unprecedented situations. No doubt, the law will have to adapt.

Beryll Howell, the judge who ruled in the case, said…

“We are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox,” raising “challenging questions”… “This case, however, is not nearly so complex”

Conclusion

AI-generated art, at least for now, won’t be able to be copyrighted. Of course, that’s just the ruling in the US. Each country around the world will have to decide what to do for themselves. It seems that these technologies, whether we like it or not, are here to stay. So, what should we do about it?

The post AI-Generated Images Can’t Be Copyrighted, Says US Court first appeared on Tech Insight.

American Investors To Report Investments In Chinese Tech Industry

The US government will call for American companies to report the investments they make in the Chinese tech industry, banning such investments in some cases. This will give the government unprecedented power to screen foreign deals made even by private companies. While some worry they may be overstepping, the government has said the measure would be enacted sensitively. 

This move is the latest update in the increasingly tense relationship between the two countries. According to the BBC, Chinese officials have said they are “very disappointed” by the decision. Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington lamented that the US “has continuously escalated suppression and restrictions on China”. 

Biden had made this decision as part of a wider policy to restrict American investment in companies from “countries of concern” working within quantum computing, advanced semiconductors and sub-sectors of AI. 

The rules won’t come into effect immediately. We’re still awaiting a period of public comment where the boundaries of the proposed policy should become clearer. Officials have said the measure is a “national security action, not an economic one”. 

Conclusion 

While the US government may see this as a necessary defensive move in what is becoming an increasingly antagonistic international relationship, investors and business leaders worry about this new expansion of government oversight. Do you think this decision is worth the economic price? Or does it not go far enough? 

The post US Government To Block Investment In Chinese Tech Industry first appeared on Tech Insight.

EHRC: The Watchdog’s Stand on AI Regulation

The EHRC, an independent public body in the UK, asserts that the government’s proposals to regulate AI are not up to par with the necessities to address human rights risks. This feedback deals a significant blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who aspires for the UK to be the epicenter of global AI safety. (Read more about Sunak’s initiative here from our London Tech Week 2023 Coverage).

The EHRC does acknowledge the myriad benefits that AI technology could bring but insists on a greater emphasis on its potential impact on equality.

More about the EHRC



The Echoes of ‘1984’ in the EHRC Concerns

As George Orwell prophesied in his novel ‘1984’, unchecked technology can pose significant threats to human rights and individual freedoms. The EHRC’s concern resonates with Orwell’s dystopian vision, calling attention to the need for robust safeguards against potential AI abuses.

The EHRC’s Call to Arms: Strengthened Oversight and Increased Funding

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the EHRC, has been clear: there needs to be careful oversight to ensure that AI innovation doesn’t inadvertently exacerbate existing societal biases or introduce new forms of discrimination. To rise to this challenge, the EHRC requires a boost in capability and scale, which it cannot achieve without government funding.

EHRC: Recognizing Steps in the Right Direction

Despite their critique, the EHRC does commend the government’s ambition to develop a robust regulatory framework for AI, viewing the white paper as a step in the right direction.

The government’s AI regulatory white paper has indeed been met with mixed reactions. While some appreciate the sector-specific measures, others are questioning the gaps in the published material. Labour MP Darren Jones has asked the government to clarify its plans for ensuring safety in AI.

Are we Heading for an Orweilian AI Future?

The government maintains its commitment to developing safety measures and collaborating with international players to put protections in place. As the dialogue continues, and as the echoes of Orwell’s ‘1984’ loom in the background, all eyes will be on how the UK shapes its AI future.

What do you think of the EHRC’s stance on the AI white paper? Do you believe the proposed regulations sufficiently safeguard human rights, or is there room for improvement? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The post EHRC Criticizes UK AI White Paper for Human Rights Shortcomings first appeared on Tech Insight.

In our data-driven world, it can sometimes seem like the rules for tech firms breach borders across the world – the more money you have to play with, it seems, the more rules you can bend. Today, at least, that isn’t the case, as Meta received a record Facebook fine for breaching rules put in place to safeguard users’ information.

Today, Hannah Murphy at the Financial Times has reported that Meta has been hit with a record €1.2bn (£1.4bn GBP) fine by a European Union regulatory board for “privacy violations”, and ordered to suspend all user data transfers to the US. As Murphy points out, it’s the most significant penalty of its kind in the bloc’s – that is to say, the continent’s – history.

Meta wants to go broader than borders

It transpires that Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, the DPC, has taken umbrage with Meta’s handling of users’ data. The regulator exists to keep organisations of its nature accountable; according to the DPC, Facebook, which handles its European operations out of Dublin, had violated rules requiring the transfers of personal data from the EU to the US without appropriate safeguards in place.

It’s significant that the DPC is figure heading for the entire EU – so often, Meta and similar corporations seem to bypass national jurisdiction – but no surprise, considering its European base of operations.

“We are . . .  disappointed to have been singled out when using the same legal mechanism as thousands of other companies looking to provide services in Europe,”
– Facebook’s Nick Clegg

The ruling follows continued pressure within Europe for regulators to keep a close eye on its citizens’ data, and where it’s being used. Previously, activists have warned that private information remains “exposed to surveillance programmes”.

Previously serving as the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister, Clegg certainly raised some eyebrows when he joined the company as its president of global affairs. Yet his position within the company provides an indication of Meta’s grand ambitions, and crucially, the calibre of employees the corporation is willing to recruit, to skirt the legal line. This time, it hasn’t paid off.

Clegg, however, offered an indictment of the decision: “This decision is flawed, unjustified and sets a dangerous precedent for the countless other companies transferring data between the EU and the US.”

Facebook fine: where does Meta go from here?

The thing is, it’s easy to demonise one of the most ubiquitous companies on the planet – Facebook alone has 2.91 billion active users. Clegg’s comments potentially signal a sea change regarding how and why gargantuan corporations store “private” user data, but Meta certainly isn’t the only organisation we’ve put our faith in that ships and stores our data globally.

George Orwell once predicted a surveillance state, but he could never have predicted that such surveillance wouldn’t stem from our physical presence, but our digital footprint. Looking to the future, the DPC has issued Facebook’s EU HQ five months to “suspend any future transfer of personal data to the US,” and six months to cease processing EU citizens’ personal information in violation of the bloc’s General Data Protection Regulation.

It gives Meta a headstart: a way to either find a new loophole with which to thread the needle, or potentially plan to retreat and regroup on the other side of the Atlantic. Have they overstepped? Maybe, but for a corporation monopolising the market that’s reportedly worth $646.29 billion USD, Meta may just be fine to flex its muscles, incur the cost, and carry on regardless.

Source: Facebook owner Meta hit with record €1.2bn fine over EU-US data transfers.

Is Meta too big to fail? Tell us what you think in the comments!

It’s not all doom and gloom! Click here to read: Microsoft Pledges https://techinsight.newshub.talkabout.tech/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/09/uk-technology-heatmap-3.jpg-Carbon Data Centre by 2030.

The post Meta Punished By The EU For Bad Data Practices – But Does It Care? first appeared on Tech Insight.

Video games are big business in 2023, and that’s only going to accelerate. As the Verge Reports, Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard Acquisition has been approved by EU regulators – one of tech’s biggest companies has been given the green light to strong-arm the rest of the industry, and it seems like the end user might be the one that pays. What does Microsoft acquiring Activision mean for you?

Microsoft’s macro bid

In the world of console-based, mainstream gaming, there are three key players: Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony; Microsoft’s Xbox Series X and S, and Sony’s PlayStation 5 mark the ninth generation of consumer-grade, home-based consoles. Since Microsoft entered the sandbox with the original Xbox in 2001, it has vied for supremacy with Sony’s PlayStation. Each generation is a new battleground – the Xbox 360, for the longest time, eclipsed its competitor. The Xbox One? Not so much – this time around, Microsoft seems to think that monopolising the industry is the way to go.

As reported by the Verge, the company’s $68.7 billion deal (that’s £54.9 billion in GBP) to acquire Activision Blizzard has been approved by regulators in the EU, just weeks after regulators in the UK blocked the same acquisition. The European Commission has concluded that Microsoft, “would have no incentive to refuse to distribute Activision’s games to Sony.”

“Even if Microsoft did decide to withdraw Activision’s games from the PlayStation, this would not significantly harm competition in the consoles market.” – The European Commission

The future, however, of gaming, doesn’t seem to be anchored wholly in home consoles found underneath your television, and EU regulators found that even if Microsoft’s big bid doesn’t affect where customers can play their games, it could disrupt the distribution of PC and video game through cloud gaming services.

Microsoft acquiring Activision Blizzard – beyond the box

For years, the Call of Duty series, one of Activision’s big earners, has dominated as a multi-platform behemoth, across both PlayStation and Xbox brands. In 2023, Sony has enjoyed a 44.1% market share, compared to Microsoft’s paltry 16% – many users feared that Microsoft might be attempting to simply close the door on Sony’s Call of Duty player base. Microsoft, however, seems to be setting its sights on a future fight.

The European Commission has identified a remedy in its judgement: decade-long licensing deals that Microsoft has offered to competitors in the space, to assuage concerns that Call of Duty might jump ship. What’s more, a free license to customers in the European Union would allow end-users to stream all current and future Activision Blizzard PC and console games via any cloud game streaming service of their choice.

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), however, had a less optimistic view of Microsoft’s colossal offer, expecting that the acquisition could in fact lead to “reduced innovation and less choice for UK gamers.” Nintendo and Sony have traditionally had recognisable mascots in their camps – think Mario and Zelda, and Crash Bandicoot and Lara Croft. Sony’s crop, however, due to deft deals between publishers, has found its way to other platforms. In the walled garden home console space, players have often baulked at these forced, timed exclusivities, with many opting to simply go without that shell out for another overpriced system.

With luck, Microsoft’s Xbox division will stay true to its word and not erect such roadblocks in the future.

The nature of the beast

Ultimately, this is a bid for supremacy in a burgeoning tech space, rather than the ninth console generation, and it’s here that the CMA’s worries lie. Activision is now known as Activision Blizzard because of a similar acquisition – just on a much smaller scale. In 2016, the company acquired King Digital, the mobile game developer responsible for the impossibly popular Candy Crush series.

The company’s chief executive Bobby Kotick castigated the CMA’s move against the acquisition last month, stating he believed it was evidence that the UK was “closed for business”. As Microsoft’s walled garden grows, however, it lends credence to the CMA’s foresight. At this rate, Microsoft could end up with all the toys in the toy box, and if that happens, gamers will be forced to get on board with the Xbox brand, or go find their fun elsewhere.

Source: The Verge

What do you think of this proposed new deal? Is it good news for the end-user? Have your say below!

Want to see what else Microsoft is up to? Click here: Microsoft’s CoPilot AI: A Game-Changer for Developers.

The post Microsoft Acquiring Activision: A Big Ploy To Take on PlayStation? first appeared on Tech Insight.

For the past three years, the UK has had the bare bones of a new Industrial Strategy that is forward-looking, and imaginative, and sees technologies such as robotics, artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, digital health, and renewable energy sources as critical to economic prosperity.

These technologies will help the UK meet the ‘grand challenges’ of the future, says the government – clean growth, caring for an ageing society, future mobility, and forging a role for AI in a data-driven society. Those concepts are core to the Industrial Strategy and its associated missions.

One problem facing the UK, however, is that this strong message – which could inform and inspire the populace, galvanise business, and impress overseas investors, partners, and researchers – has been largely drowned out by the political infighting of Brexit. As the Chair of a Westminster eForum event observed earlier this year, both the country and Parliament are “impaled” on the issue.

That hasn’t stopped some ambitious programmes from taking place. Investments from UK Research & Innovation – via Innovate UK and the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund – have bet millions of pounds on British startups and innovators, alongside the new Sector Deals that combine public funds with private sector backing.

Meanwhile, via Innovate UK’s and the Knowledge Transfer Network’s Expert Missions, the UK has been reaching out to countries such as the US, China, Japan, Canada, and South Korea to open the door to British startups, academics, and blue chips. The programme puts technologies such as robotics, AI, digital health, and quantum computing at its core.

On 9 September, a new report, Automation and the Future of Work was put to the government, a draft document that seeks explanations for why UK productivity has been flatlining since 2008-09. It proposes the operational and strategic opportunities presented by robotics and artificial intelligence as a partial remedy.

It explains that the problem is not that the UK has too many robots in the workplace – despite the media’s obsession with job-taking machines – but that it has too few. In 2015, the UK had just 10 robots for every million hours worked, compared with 167 in Japan. By 2017, we represented just 0.6 per cent of industrial robotics shipments worldwide.

According to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR), the UK is the only G7 economy with a below-average robot density: 71 robots per 10,000 workers, against a global average of 74 (a more recent study suggests the global average is 85).

By contrast, South Korea has 631 – and, it’s worth noting, a human unemployment rate of just 3.1%. Japan has nearly 300,000 industrial robots (and 23 percent of all the world’s robots) and an even lower unemployment rate: of 2.4 percent. The UK is a mere 22nd in the world automation league, and this is a major reason for its lack of productivity growth.

The report adds that, despite its many promises and endorsements, the government needs to start backing its vision with concerted action and bigger investments to match the ambitions of China, Japan, and the US in these fields. Yet despite the report’s strong wording and resolute aim, it was presented on the same day that Parliament was prorogued, meaning that, once again, a powerful message was lost amid the uproar of Brexit.

Of course, Leavers and political commentators would maintain that these problems would be solved by simply enacting Brexit and shifting focus back to the domestic and international agendas. But that isn’t the case. For one thing, roughly 80 per cent of the UK’s investment in robotics and AI in recent years has come from the EU. For another, the robotics report (commissioned by the government itself) explains that immigration and Europe remain critical to the UK’s ambitions in this field.

“Government’s immigration policy should provide certainty and ensure that as we leave the EU, we can recruit and retain researchers from around the world to support the sector, including where they earn below the £30,000 threshold recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee.

“We recommend that the government seeks to ensure that the UK has at least associate membership of EU research projects and can effectively collaborate with neighbouring states. The Government should seek to ensure that our future relationship with the EU and future deals with the rest of the world support new collaboration between institutions, including the free flow of researchers and academics.”

In other words, this story will run and run – and keep running for years into the future.

But there is another problem facing the UK, one that may be tougher to solve: it’s a generational issue rooted in the country’s political institutions.

Whatever your party’s political views may be, and whatever your views on Europe, Leave, or Remain, one thing is becoming increasingly obvious. The very people who are leading the charge out of Europe consistently present themselves as Luddites, rather than as forward-thinkers who are presenting a bold, technology-backed vision of the future to the nation’s youth.

Take the words of the Prime Minister himself at the UN this month – a speech that took place just before he was forced to return to the UK and reopen Parliament. “AI – what will it mean? Helpful robots washing and caring for an ageing population? Or pink-eyed Terminators sent back from the future to cull the human race?

“What will synthetic biology stand for – restoring our livers and our eyes with miracle regeneration of the tissues, like some fantastic hangover cure? Or will it bring terrifying limbless chickens to our tables?

“In the future, voice connectivity will be in every room and almost every object: your mattress will monitor your nightmares; your fridge will beep for more cheese.

“A future Alexa will pretend to take orders. But this Alexa will be watching you, clucking her tongue and stamping her foot.

“You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor – even your personal trainer – but it takes real effort to conceal your thoughts from Google.”

He concluded his speech by – like the Victoriana-obsessed Jacob Rees-Mogg before him – wearing his classical education on his sleeve, rather than a bold vision of the future.

“When Prometheus brought fire to mankind. In a tube of fennel, as you may remember, Zeus punished him by chaining him to a Tartarean crag while his liver was pecked out by an eagle. And every time his liver regrew the eagle came back and pecked it again. And this went on forever – a bit like the experience of Brexit in the UK if some of our parliamentarians had their way.”

This is precisely the wrong note to hit if Britain is to have a global future outside of the EU, striking new deals and leading the way into a more modern economy.

Why? This is the voice of a Luddite and a reactionary, not a voice that entrepreneurs, business leaders, scientists, technologists, or anyone under the age of 50 want to hear. Where is the vision to inspire the nation’s young people? (This is one reason for the rise of the youth-led anti-climate-change movement: young people are crying out for leaders who speak their language – or who even notice that they exist.)

The voice that Johnson presented to the world on his UN platform was more concerned with its own wit, making jokes about drunkenness, dominant women, cheese, and mythology – more a vision of domestic life with Boris Johnson, in fact, than of Britain standing proud in the world. This was a self-conscious, backwards-looking, traditional, gluttonous, joker’s voice, playing to the gallery of angry middle England.

It’s time for a reality check. The UK can’t have both a modern Industrial strategy with a global stance, and this kind of public persona on the world stage. Not for any party political reasons (the leaders of other political parties are often seen as Luddites too), but because one comprehensively undermines the other. It’s akin to taking a cricket bat to the UK’s industrial policy – the one written by this government.

The more our political representatives, whichever party they front, use this kind of tone, the more they make it impossible for the nation to succeed in the modern world and restore global confidence in its vision and economy. It’s time to ask: Who is the UK in 2019: Downton Abbey in Downturn Valley? Or a modern industrial, forward-looking country with a bold vision of the future?

Discover more insightful blogs like TechInsight.com. A brand of TalkAboutTech.

The post Why the UK’s backward stance is a disaster for tech first appeared on Tech Insight.

At the company’s recent annual general meeting, less than three per cent of shareholders supported the move, which sought to restrict sales of real-time facial recognition technology to law enforcement agencies.

In both the US and UK, concerns have been raised by civil liberties campaigners, and by politicians on both sides of the house, at the speed of adoption of real-time facial recognition systems, and their potential use in citizen surveillance and racial profiling.

According to a BBC report, Democrat congressman Jimmy Gomez said, “Shareholders did not not end up passing a ban on Rekognition, and you know what? That just means it’s more important that Congress acts.” Republican congressman Jim Jordan added: “It is virtually unregulated, but I think that frankly that needs to change.”

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticised Amazon over sales to two police forces of the Rekognition system, which can be fitted to officers’ body cameras. The technology enables live citizen surveillance, said the union, and risks discriminating against ethnic minorities because of poor training data, leading to people being misidentified and/or profiled by the police.

ACLU lawyer Matt Cagle said that real-time facial recognition “provides government with unprecedented power to track people going about their daily lives. That’s incompatible with a healthy democracy.”

At this year’s AGM, Amazon said that it knew of such concerns but was not aware of any abuse of the system by police. In its belief, it is up to legislators, not individual companies, to curb the technology’s use.

Nevertheless, a second proposal called on the company to commission an independent study into the privacy risks, and whether Rekognition’s adoption could lead to the disproportionate surveillance of ethnic minorities, immigrants, and political activists. The proposal garnered greater support – 27.5 per cent of shareholders – but was still rejected.

The debate about facial recognition is certainly hotting up in government. In May, San Francisco became the first American city to ban police and security services from using the technology. The move also prohibits the use of data gathered by facial recognition systems in the city.

City supervisor Aaron Peskin said, “We have an outsize responsibility to regulate the excesses of technology precisely because they are headquartered here.”

The feelings are shared on this side of the Atlantic. In the UK last year, Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee quoted findings from privacy group Big Brother Watch that the Metropolitan Police had achieved less than two per cent accuracy rates with its automated facial recognition system. In a trial programme, just two people were correctly identified and 102 were incorrectly ‘matched’. The force made no arrests using the technology.

The Committee recommended that such systems should “not generally be deployed, beyond the current pilots” until questions about their effectiveness and potential for bias could be answered.

Politicians and privacy watchdogs are not alone in warning of the potential abuse of these systems. Last year, Microsoft urged the US government to regulate facial recognition.

In a blog post, company president Brad Smith wrote, “Facial recognition technology raises issues that go to the heart of fundamental human rights protections, like privacy and freedom of expression.” He called for “a government initiative to regulate the proper use of facial recognition technology, informed first by a bipartisan and expert commission”.

• Last year, California introduced data privacy regulations that could form the basis for de facto GDPR-style rules in the US. The California Consumer Privacy Act came into force in 2020 but was opposed by Google, Facebook, and other advertising-driven technology companies.
• According to Bloomberg and CNBC reports, the US government is considering adding Chinese technology company Megvii, maker of the Face++ facial recognition system, to a trade blacklist.

Discover more such insightful content on TechInsight.com, a Brand of Talk About tech.

The post Amazon rejects calls to ban sales of facial recognition first appeared on Tech Insight.