There are several ethical and privacy concerns over the use of facial recognition software – especially when it comes to profiling and automated decision-making about individuals.
In particular, women and people of BAME groups are being discriminated against by companies that use such tech. This is because leading facial-recognition software packages are much worse at identifying women and people of colour than at classifying male, white faces.
Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the processing of biometric data (such as images of a person’s face), and the use of automated decision-making, including profiling, are only allowed in very explicit circumstances. By discriminating against individuals and automatically making decisions that harm them, such technology is not GDPR compliant.
At Keller Lenkner UK, we make sure our clients are compensated for any GDPR violations that impact their legal rights. And if you have been harmed because of facial recognition software and algorithmic and automated decision-making processes, we can help.
Drivers working for Uber and Uber Eats must use facial identification software to access the Uber system. But some BAME drivers have claimed that the facial recognition technology is costing them their livelihoods as the software is incapable of recognising their faces.
After a failed ID test, some drivers have been threatened with termination, had their accounts frozen and left unable to work, or even permanently fired. The drivers also allege that the process is automated and that they are left without any right to appeal.
Similar software to that used by Uber has shown a 20.8% failure rate for darker-skinned female faces, 6% for darker-skinned males, and 0% for white men.
Facial recognition technology can send instant alerts when “subjects of interest” enter a premises or area. However Big Brother Watch – a British civil liberties and privacy campaigning organisation – described how one black schoolboy was “swooped by four officers, put up against a wall, fingerprinted, phone taken, before police realised the face recognition had got the wrong guy”.
Elizabeth Denham, the UK Information Commissioner, has said she is “deeply concerned” about the use of live facial recognition (LFR). Commenting in a blog post, Ms Denham addressed privacy worries over the use of live facial recognition technology in public places.
Partner Kingsley Hayes discusses the legal obstacles the NHS will need to overcome before it uses algorithmic decision making to tackle record waiting list backlogs, in ISBuzz news. Kingsley’s article was published in ISBuzz news, 1 July 2021
Do you know exactly how much of your data is being collected, by who, and for what purpose? We discuss the risk when shopping – both online and in-store.
In February 2021, Uber lost a judgement in the Netherlands where it was challenged over the alleged ‘robo-firings’ of drivers. The Court of Amsterdam ordered Uber to reinstate six drivers who claim they were unfairly terminated “by algorithmic means.” Uber was also ordered to pay the fired drivers compensation. Uber had until March 29 to comply with the order, but failed to do so.
BAME drivers claim that Uber’s facial identification software is discriminating against them. If shown to be true, this is not only a worker’s right issue, but also a clear breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
