An attempt by MPs to learn more about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s use of controversial facial recognition software clashed on Monday with a member of Parliament accusing police officials of being “deliberately evasive”.
The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met this morning to continue its study of the use of emerging technology in Canada.
Their efforts come a year after Federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Terrain said RCMP’s use of facial recognition software created by US-based Clearview AI amounts to a serious violation of Canadian privacy laws.
This program allows users to match images with a database of more than three billion images.
In a heated questioning line on Monday, NDP MP Matthew Green pressed Gordon Sage, the general director of the RCMP’s sensitive and specialized investigative services, to mention who licensed the software to use RCMP back in 2018 and who oversaw the process.
“Can you please name your ancestor?” Asked.
After exchanging back and forth, Sage eventually said that the official in question had since retired and that he didn’t think he had the right to name him.
“My view is that you gave your predecessor more consideration in his rights to be named in a situation, and that is really public information in the public forum, over billions of people whose photos have been collected and analyzed by this AI technology,” Green said.
“What we have, what I have – I will speak for myself – is a matter of great confidence.”
Parliament contempt warning
Subsequently, Conservative MP James Bezan described the responses MPs on the committee received from the three RCMP officials who had been called as witnesses as “deliberate evasions” – and reminded them that they could be found in contempt of Parliament if they did not cooperate.
“Some of the answers we received today were very limited and I would suggest that witnesses exercise their responsibilities to this commission, that those around us be a parliamentary privilege and expect comprehensive answers,” he said.
“One-word answers and evasions do not fulfill our work as members of the Committee.”
RCMP initially denied using Clearview AI software in 2020. It later confirmed that it was using the software after news of the company’s client list being hacked.
In the same year, an investigation by the New York Times revealed that the program had extracted more than three billion images from public websites such as Facebook and Instagram. Then it turned it into a database used by more than 600 law enforcement agencies in the United States, Canada and elsewhere.
The company stopped offering facial recognition services in Canada after the launch of a federal privacy commissioner investigation. RCMP said it has stopped using the program.
RCMP says it has used the technology three times
Sage said Monday that the force used Clearview AI in three official cases: twice inside a child exploitation unit and once to track down a fugitive who was abroad.
“There were a lot of members who were testing the technology to see if it worked or not. They were using a lot of searches on their own pictures, on their profiles to see if this technology worked. They took pictures of celebrities and turned it on. Clearview to see if it worked. she was working “.
“In fact, by testing this technology, we realized that it wasn’t always effective.”
After the backlash over its use of Clearview AI technology, the RCMP announced plans to be more transparent about how it adopts and uses new technology and investigative tools that involve the collection and use of personal information.
The RCMP promises to release this new policy by the end of June.
A panel concluded on Monday with members agreeing to request the RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lockey to attend.
“[The RCMP] He has not, in my view, demonstrated the ability to be open and honest with civil oversight bodies, such as the House of Commons, to provide basic information to Canadians concerned about their civil liberties,” Green said during questioning.
Last week, Terrain and his county counterparts issued a statement calling on lawmakers to establish rules that explicitly state when police can use facial recognition technology.
“The restricted areas should include a ban on any use of facial recognition that could lead to mass surveillance,” they wrote.
“Legislation should require police use of facial recognition to be necessary and proportionate in any given technology deployment.”
Comments
Post a Comment