Facial recognition under the spotlight

Microsoft repeatedly marketed its facial recognition technology to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), according to emails released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Wednesday.

The emails, dated between September 2017 and December 2018, raise questions about the tech giant’s work with law enforcement after it promised last week not to sell facial recognition to police departments.

They show that the DEA piloted the facial recognition technology and that Microsoft hosted agency personnel at its Virginia office for demos and training.

A November 2018 email shows that the DEA did not purchase the technology at the time.

The Hill has reached out to Microsoft and the DEA for comment on their relationship and cooperation with facial recognition technology.

“It is bad enough that Microsoft tried to sell a dangerous technology to a law enforcement agency tasked with spearheading the racist drug war, but it gets worse,” Nathan Freed Wessler, senior staff attorney at the ACLU, said in a statement.

“Even after belatedly promising not to sell face surveillance tech to police last week, Microsoft has refused to say whether it would sell the technology to federal agencies like the DEA. This is troubling given the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s record, but it’s even more disturbing now that Attorney General Bill Barr has reportedly expanded this very agency’s surveillance authorities, which could be abused to spy on people protesting police brutality.”

Microsoft announced last Thursday that it will maintain its ban on selling facial recognition tools to police departments until there is a federal law governing the technology, following commitments on the issue by IBM and Amazon.

Nationwide protests against police brutality are renewing scrutiny of facial recognition technology, prompting tech giants such as Amazon and IBM to scale back their sales of the software to law enforcement at the state and local level.

The criticism of the programs is also reigniting congressional efforts to craft federal regulations for the technology.

IBM was the first major company to make a splash on the issue, announcing in a letter to Congress last week that it will end its facial recognition business entirely.

CEO Arvind Krishna said the decision was made in part due to concerns from activists and civil rights groups that law enforcement may be using the technology to identify individuals participating in the demonstrations that have erupted across the nation following the police killing of George Floyd.

Amazon followed IBM’s lead a few days later, although the company made a much more limited commitment, saying that for the next 12 months its facial recognition technology, known as Rekognition, will not be sold to police.

Critics, however, have pointed out that Amazon did not address its sale of the technology to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and has actively expanded partnerships between its video doorbell system Ring and police since Floyd’s killing.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) sent a letter to Jeff Bezos Wednesday pressing the Amazon CEO for information about the company’s one-year moratorium on selling facial recognition technology to law enforcement.

The e-commerce giant announced last week that its facial recognition tech, Rekognition, will not be sold directly to police for the next 12 months. The announcement, which came amid rising scrutiny of the technology driven by anti-police brutality protests, immediately drew criticism.

“While I am encouraged by the direction Amazon appears to be taking on this issue, the ambiguity of the announcement raises more questions than answers,” wrote Gomez, a member of the House Oversight and Reform and Ways and Means committees.

The California lawmaker pointed out that the 102-word announcement does not say whether Amazon will continue to develop its facial recognition tech during the moratorium, whether the freeze will extend to local and federal law enforcement beyond federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement or whether it applies to current contracts with law enforcement.

Gomez included in the letter a list of questions about Rekognition, noting that many of them have been asked before but not answered “adequately.”