skip to main content
10.1145/3375627.3375820acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaiesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Saving Face: Investigating the Ethical Concerns of Facial Recognition Auditing

Published:07 February 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Although essential to revealing biased performance, well intentioned attempts at algorithmic auditing can have effects that may harm the very populations these measures are meant to protect. This concern is even more salient while auditing biometric systems such as facial recognition, where the data is sensitive and the technology is often used in ethically questionable manners. We demonstrate a set of fiveethical concerns in the particular case of auditing commercial facial processing technology, highlighting additional design considerations and ethical tensions the auditor needs to be aware of so as not exacerbate or complement the harms propagated by the audited system. We go further to provide tangible illustrations of these concerns, and conclude by reflecting on what these concerns mean for the role of the algorithmic audit and the fundamental product limitations they reveal.

References

  1. Amazon. 2019. Amazon Rekognition FAQs. Retrieved Oct 31, 2019 from https://aws.amazon.com/rekognition/faqs/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sebastian Benthall and Bruce D. Haynes. 2019. Racial Categories in Machine Learning. In Proc. of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT). 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sen. Roy Blunt. 2019. S.847 - Commercial Facial Recognition Privacy Act of 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/847/textGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Joy Buolamwini. 2018. When the Robot Doesn't See Dark Skin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proc. of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Matt Cagle and Nicole Ozer. 2018. Amazon Teams Up With Government to Deploy Dangerous New Facial Recognition Technology. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarifai. 2019. Custom Face Recognition. Retrieved Oct 31, 2019 from https: //www.clarifai.com/custom-face-recognitionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Rep. Yvette D. Clarke. 2019. H.R.2231 - Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2231Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Rep. Yvette D. Clarke. 2019. H.R.4008 - No Biometric Barriers to Housing Act of 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4008/text?r= 11&s=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Lord Clement-Jones. 2019. Automated Facial Recognition Technology (Moratorium and Review) Bill [HL] 2019--20. https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019- 20/automatedfacialrecognitiontechnologymoratoriumandreview.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum (1989), 139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimberle Crenshaw. 2017. Kimberle Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Craig R Ehlen and Robert B Welker. 1996. Procedural fairness in the peer and quality review programs. Auditing 15, 1 (1996), 38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Norman L Enger and Paul William Howerton. 1980. Computer Security: A Management Audit Approach. Amacom New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Face++. 2019. Face Attributes. Retrieved Oct 31, 2019 from https://www. faceplusplus.com/attributes/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sellywati Mohd Faizal, Mohd Rizal Palil, Ruhanita Maelah, and Rosiati Ramli. 2017. Perception on justice, trust and tax compliance behavior in Malaysia. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 38, 3 (2017), 226--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Sheera Frenkel. 2018. Microsoft Employees Question CEO Over Company's Contract With ICE. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Timnit Gebru. 2019. Oxford Handbook on AI Ethics Book Chapter on Race and Gender. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06165 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, JenniferWortman Vaughan, HannaWallach, Hal Daumeé III, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09010 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Yandong Guo, Lei Zhang, Yuxiao Hu, Xiaodong He, and Jianfeng Gao. 2016. Ms-celeb-1m: Challenge of recognizing one million celebrities in the real world. Electronic imaging 2016, 11 (2016), 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Foad Hamidi, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Stacy M Branham. 2018. Gender recognition or gender reductionism?: The social implications of embedded gender recognition systems. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Amy Hawkins. 2018. Beijing's Big Brother Tech Needs African Faces. Retrieved October 31, 2019 from https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/24/beijings-big-brothertech- needs-african-faces/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Michael Hind, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, Ravi Nair, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Alexandra Olteanu, and Kush R Varshney. 2018. Increasing Trust in AI Services through Supplier's Declarations of Conformity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07261 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Anna Lauren Hoffmann. 2019. Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society 22, 7 (2019), 900--915.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. IBM. 2019. Release notes. Retrieved Oct 31, 2019 from https://cloud.ibm.com/ docs/services/visual-recognition?topic=visual-recognition-release-notesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kairos. 2019. Kairos Face Recognition Pricing Guide. Retrieved Oct 31, 2019 from https://www.kairos.com/pricingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2018. Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness. In Proc. of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Os Keyes. 2018. The Misgendering Machines: Trans/HCI Implications of Automatic Gender Recognition. Proc. of the Human Computer Interact action 2, CSCW, Article 88 (Nov. 2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Steven Melendez. 2018. Despite a surge of tech activism, Clarifai plans to push further into government work. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Steven Melendez. 2018. Uber driver troubles raise concerns about transgender face recognition. Retrieved October 31, 2019 from https://www.fastcompany.com/90216258/uber-face-recognition-tool-haslocked- out-some-transgender-driversGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Michele Merler, Nalini Ratha, Rogerio S. Feris, and John R. Smith. 2019. Diversity in Faces. arXiv preprints, Article arXiv:1901.10436 (Jan. 2019), arXiv:1901.10436 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Microsoft. 2019. What is the Azure Face API? Retrieved Oct 31, 2019 from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive-services/face/overviewGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Margaret Mitchell, SimoneWu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Model Cards for Model Reporting. CoRR abs/1810.03993 (2018). arXiv:1810.03993 http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03993Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Paul Mozur. 2019. One Month, 500,000 Face Scans: How China Is Using A.I. to Profile a Minority. Retrieved October 31, 2019 from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/technology/china-surveillance-artificialintelligence- racial-profiling.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Kristina Murphy. 2003. Procedural justice and tax compliance. Australian Journal of Social Issues (Australian Council of Social Service) 38, 3 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Shruti Nagpal, Maneet Singh, Richa Singh, Mayank Vatsa, and Nalini Ratha. 2019. Deep Learning for Face Recognition: Pride or Prejudiced? arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01219 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Mei Ngan, Mei Ngan, and Patrick Grother. 2015. Face recognition vendor test (FRVT) performance of automated gender classification algorithms. Government Technical Report. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Inioluwa Deborah Raji and Joy Buolamwini. 2019. Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial AI products. In Prof. of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Rasmus Rothe, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. 2016. Deep expectation of real and apparent age from a single image without facial landmarks. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV) (7 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Silonie Sachdeva et al. 2009. Fitzpatrick skin typing: Applications in dermatology. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology 75, 1 (2009), 93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Jacob M Paul, and Jedr Brubaker. 2019. How Computers See Gender: An Evaluation of Gender Classification in Commercial Facial Analysis and Image Labeling Services. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jacob Snow. 2018. Amazon's Face Recognition Falsely Matched 28 Members of Congress With Mugshots. Retrieved August 24, 2017 from https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/ amazons-face-recognition-falsely-matched-28Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Olivia Solon. 2019. Facial recognition's 'dirty little secret': Millions of online photos scraped without consent. Retrieved October 31, 2019 from https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facial-recognition-s-dirty-littlesecret- millions-online-photos-scraped-n981921Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Nisha Srinivas, Karl Ricanek, Dana Michalski, David S Bolme, and Michael King. 2019. Face Recognition Algorithm Bias: Performance Differences on Images of Children and Adults. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 0--0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Saving Face: Investigating the Ethical Concerns of Facial Recognition Auditing

                            Recommendations

                            Comments

                            Login options

                            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                            Sign in
                            • Published in

                              cover image ACM Conferences
                              AIES '20: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
                              February 2020
                              439 pages
                              ISBN:9781450371100
                              DOI:10.1145/3375627

                              Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

                              Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

                              Publisher

                              Association for Computing Machinery

                              New York, NY, United States

                              Publication History

                              • Published: 7 February 2020

                              Check for updates

                              Qualifiers

                              • research-article

                              Acceptance Rates

                              Overall Acceptance Rate61of162submissions,38%

                            PDF Format

                            View or Download as a PDF file.

                            PDF

                            eReader

                            View online with eReader.

                            eReader