Blog Layout

Expert warns against facial recognition bill

Jessica Guttridge

Disruption and misidentification concerns around facial recognition technology and applications

Associate professor Carsten Rudolph, from Monash University, has criticised the Federal Government’s Identity-matching Services bill.

In an interview with Innovation Intelligence, Rudolph discussed the inaccuracies of facial recognition technology can cause disruptions, and the potential for the database to be misused or stolen.  

The bill introduces five components of facial recognition for the Commonwealth, State and Territories. Under the bill law enforcement and other agencies would be able to identify and verify identities based on a collective database of faces.

Rudolph explains that when using the data for identification, it’s not 100% accurate, and while the margin of error might seem small it would still affect a great number of people.

“If 100,000 people bought tickets to the AFL, and the event was using facial recognition software to verify identities before entering, 300 people could be denied entry.”

There is also a concern for facial recognition to misrecognise minorities, as the system will mostly be trained using white faces.

“The potential for false recognition is greater, the training data for these minorities will be small which means the data will be worse,” explains Rudolph.

With the high rates of incarceration of Indigenous Australians, there is a greater potential for the technology to misrecognise Indigenous people as criminals.

It is possible to work around the problems of these systems when it comes to misrecognising minorities, Rudolph says, but it is difficult. 

“There is research around generating similar data from the data that you do have. You can use it to train particular variants of the system.”

He also has concerns over the (IDSS) database being misused or stolen. 
 
“Just by creating that database there is the potential it can be misused, or stolen. It is not clear what the data should be used for and what it should not be used for. I think as a country or as a society we need to think about what services we want to have and what this will be used for in the future. 

“Of course, there are always the issues around the security of the database itself. We have a lot of good security controls and mechanisms in place, still systems get hacked and databases get stolen.”

Currently the Federal Government’s identity-matching services bill is limited for the uses of law enforcement, security, protective security, community safety, road safety, and verifying identification, and will not use live facial recognition. However, Rudolph said there is reason to fear that it may change in future. 

As he explains, when there is a crime, people are naturally going to want to use the CCTV footage for facial recognition, and while the Government promises it will not be used in real-time, a lot of people are sceptical. 

“There is research that people will change the behaviour when they are tracked and always supervised by CCTV. They try not to stick out. They change their clothing to be quite bland and not stick out. They go to areas where there are no cameras and this change of behaviour is something that we don’t want to see in our society.”


By By Harley Paroulaksis, CEO Paspalis, CEO Darwin Innovation Hub 20 May, 2023
Getting asked what we look for in deals is one of the most common questions I get as an investment manager.
20 May, 2023
The Small Business Association of Australia is dedicated to supporting SMEs, acting as their voice to government and helping them connect, grow, and prosper well into the future.
By By Shiv Meka 20 May, 2023
Sensibles may sound like science fiction, but this revolutionary technology is making waves in aged-care facilities, and has the potential to transform health monitoring at scale.
28 Mar, 2023
Alice Springs and the deserts of Central Australia don’t sound like a food basket, but they are for businesswoman and bush foods innovator Rayleen Brown.
By Gillian Cumming 28 Mar, 2023
A new report aims to lay the foundations for a deeper and more meaningful and equitable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the mining transition sector.
By Dr Saraid Billiards - CEO of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. 27 Mar, 2023
If the health and medical research sector in Australia is to move forward, it must address gender equity, diversity, and inclusion- which means making the sector a safe and inclusive workspace for all.
27 Jan, 2023
A ground-breaking sheep technology system is bettering the businesses and lives of Australian sheep breeders thanks to a revolutionary combination of software, hardware, and support never before combined into one cohesive unit.
27 Jan, 2023
ANCA took an early view to look beyond Australia’s shores whilst developing advanced manufacturing technologies now viewed as ‘business as usual’
By Andrew Downs 27 Jan, 2023
As Australia grapples with a critical skills shortage, many are now encouraging young people to embrace a career in the trades, where a wealth of opportunities awaits.
By By Ben Kehoe 27 Jan, 2023
In 2016 I published a blog article titled Moonshots for Australia: 7 For Now. It’s one of many I have posted on business and innovation in Australia. In that book, I highlighted a number of Industries of the Future among a number of proposed Moonshots. I self-published a book, Innovation in Australia – Creating prosperity for future generations, in 2019, with a follow-up COVID edition in 2020. There is no doubt COVID is causing massive disruption. Prior to COVID, there was little conversation about National Sovereignty or supply chains. Even now, these topics are fading, and we remain preoccupied with productivity and jobs! My motivation for this writing has been the absence of a coherent narrative for Australia’s business future. Over the past six years, little has changed. The Australian ‘psyche’ regarding our political and business systems is programmed to avoid taking a long-term perspective. The short-term nature of Government (3 to 4-year terms), the short-term horizon of the business system (driven by shareholder value), the media culture (infotainment and ‘gotcha’ games), the general Australian population’s cynical perspective and a preoccupation with a lifestyle all create a malaise of strategic thinking and conversation. Ultimately, it leads to a leadership vacuum at all levels. In recent years we have seen the leadership of some of our significant institutions failing to live up to the most basic standards, with Royal Commissions, Inquiries and investigations consuming excessive time and resources. · Catholic Church and other religious bodies · Trade Unions · Banks (and businesses generally, take casinos, for example) · the Australian Defence Force · the Australian cricket teams · our elected representatives and the staff of Parliament House As they say, “A fish rots from the head!” At best, the leadership behaviour in those institutions could be described as unethical and, at worst….just bankrupt! In the last decade, politicians have led us through a game of “leadership by musical chairs” – although, for now, it has stabilised. However, there is still an absence of a coherent narrative about business and wealth creation. It is a challenge. One attempt to provide such a narrative has been the Intergenerational Reports produced by our federal Government every few years since 2002. The shortcomings of the latest Intergenerational Report Each Intergenerational Report examines the long-term sustainability of current government policies and how demographic, technological, and other structural trends may affect the economy and the budget over the next 40 years. The fifth and most recent Intergenerational Report released in 2021 (preceded by Reports in 2002, 2007, 2010 and 2015) provides a narrative about Australia’s future – in essence, it is an extension of the status quo. The Report also highlights three key insights: 1. First, our population is growing slower and ageing faster than expected. 2. The Australian economy will continue to grow, but slower than previously thought. 3. While Australia’s debt is sustainable and low by international standards, the ageing of our population will pressure revenue and expenditure. However, its release came and went with a whimper. The recent Summit on (what was it, Jobs and Skills and productivity?) also seems to have made the difference of a ‘snowflake’ in hell in terms of identifying our long-term challenges and growth industries. Let’s look back to see how we got here and what we can learn. Australia over the last 40 years During Australia’s last period of significant economic reform (the late 1980s and early 1990s), there was a positive attempt at building an inclusive national narrative between Government and business. Multiple documents were published, including: · Australia Reconstructed (1987) – ACTU · Enterprise Bargaining a Better Way of Working (1989) – Business Council of Australia · Innovation in Australia (1991) – Boston Consulting Group · Australia 2010: Creating the Future Australia (1993) – Business Council of Australia · and others. There were workshops, consultations with industry leaders, and conferences across industries to pursue a national microeconomic reform agenda. Remember these concepts? · global competitiveness · benchmarking · best practice · award restructuring and enterprising bargaining · training, management education and multiskilling. This agenda was at the heart of the business conversation. During that time, the Government encouraged high levels of engagement with stakeholders. As a result, I worked with a small group of training professionals to contribute to the debate. Our contribution included events and publications over several years, including What Dawkins, Kelty and Howard All Agree On – Human Resources Strategies for Our Nation (published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development). Unfortunately, these long-term strategic discussions are nowhere near as prevalent among Government and industry today. The 1980s and 1990s were a time of radical change in Australia. It included: · floating the $A · deregulation · award restructuring · lowering/abolishing tariffs · Corporatisation and Commercialisation Ross Garnaut posits that the reforms enabled Australia to lead the developed world in productivity growth – given that it had spent most of the 20th century at the bottom of the developed country league table. However, in his work, The Great Reset, Garnaut says that over the next 20 years, our growth was attributable to the China mining boom, and from there, we settled into “The DOG days” – Australia moved to the back of a slow-moving pack! One unintended consequence of opening our economy to the world is the emasculation of the Australian manufacturing base. The manic pursuit of increased efficiency, lower costs, and shareholder value meant much of the labour-intensive work was outsourced. Manufacturing is now less than 6% of our GDP , less than half of what it was 30 years ago!
More Posts
Share by: