Sunday, July 29, 2018

SensibleVision Disagrees with Microsoft Proposal of Facial Recognition Regulation

BusinessWire: SensibleVision, a developer of 3D face authentication solutions, criticized Microsoft President Brad Smith's call for government regulation of facial recognition technology:

Why would Smith single out this one technology for external oversight and not all biometrics methods?” asks George Brostoff, CEO and Co-Founder of SensibleVision. “In fact, unlike fingerprints or iris scans, a person's face is always in view and public. I would suggest it’s the use cases, ownership and storage of biometric data (in industry parlance “templates”) that are critical and should be considered for regulation. Partnerships between private companies and the public sector have always been key to the successful adoption of innovative technologies. We look forward to contributing to this broader discussion.


  1. "In fact, unlike fingerprints or iris scans, a person's face is always in view and public."
    Indeed, fingerprints and iris scans generally involve the personal liberty to make a choice about sharing identity. With facial recognition there is no choice and facial recognition can easily be used for nefarious purposes - like identifying candidate victims for kidnapping and ransom, or learning who is not at home for possible burglaries to having full credit and spending information available to anyone on the street or in any shopping area etc. Regulation is absolutely needed. And why would facial recognition be singled out? We have to start somewhere and this is going to be a very intrusive technology. But yes, there are many other camera applications where regulation is desired.

  2. I do not understand why surveillance using cameras is causing so much fuss. Everyone is tracked very precisely with credit card, mobile phone, and Internet usage, personnal data is indeed much more than just localization and walking patterns. Video surveillance potential is probably marginal while driving fantasies wild. Yes private companies are using personal data (localization is one) to make money, and governments may use it to restrict public liberties. It has been 30 years in the making, thank you Mr Microsoft for realising this is a big question. Nevertheless I suspect coordination with the troubles at Facebook to be a little opportunistic. In my point of view video analytics in shoping centers will only accelerate people buying on line. At the city level this is still to be seen, China and the UK being ahead in this respect, but if it does in the next 10 to 15 years, first it will not change much to the personal data/liberty/security situation, second it will be a big driver of camera sales, we should rejoy. Pierre Cambou - Yole Developpement

    1. Pierre, with all due respect, I think you are thinking too simplistically about this. On the other hand, as Andy Grove famously said, "only the paranoid survive." When it comes to privacy, I am glad to be on the paranoid side of the line. Resist the loss of your privacy!

  3. I've been told by my colleagues in China that the Chinese government is even using facial tracking to limit the amount of toilet paper that is dispensed in public bathrooms. Those who are on the government blacklist, do not get TP in these toilets. This is not a joke. It is occuring.


All comments are moderated to avoid spam and personal attacks.