Facial Recognition: Benefits & Risks
Editor’s Note:
Imagine how great technology would be if it weren’t for people. Since the beginning of time man has developed remarkable solutions to common problems. But leave it to nefarious, despicable, criminal or just plain dumb people to ruin them for the rest of us. You know, like gun powder, nuclear power, and the internet. Facial recognition programs and collection of biometric data would appear to have more benefits than risks, but those risks are there. As use of the technology proliferates we can expect more litigation as additional states follow Illinois — the first to enact a state Biometric Information Privacy Act. Martin T. Tully of Actuate Law LLC and Debbie Reynolds of Debbie Reynolds Consulting LLC, outline these risks and how regulation and litigation is responding in their article: Facial Recognition Proliferation: Litigation and Legal Implications of Biometric Technologies. Below are a couple excerpts from their article, published in the January 2021 edition of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. —Tom Hagy
Some FR technologies use a scanner to identify 4,500 different points of facial geometry to create a map of a person’s face. The application doesn’t necessarily store photos of faces; it generates and stores a unique, algorithmic representation of faces. Think of it as a hash value for that individual. The hash value can then recognize that person when they return to a facility after initially registering. “Ah, you’re Mary, the FedEx driver. You are authorized to go to Suite 501 and deliver this package to Acme Corporation because you previously registered yourself here in that capacity.” Notably, the hash value in this example is encrypted and is not personally identifiable information by itself; it is useless outside the visitor management system. In this situation, if there was unauthorized access to or disclosure of the hashed representations of facial geometry, they could not be used to identify any individuals unless the unauthorized recipient also had access to both the registration system and the registered individual. It is vital to understand how the particular FR technology works when considering its privacy implications.
…
For all its applications, the technology is not without its drawbacks. Erroneous identification using FR, especially when paired with bias in the use of artificial intelligence (AI), has raised legitimate red flags. Newsweek reported in July 2020 that Amazon’s FR technology falsely identified 28 members of Congress as people who had been arrested for crimes. Similarly, in late 2017, the iPhone X in China was criticized for its inability to distinguish between Chinese faces. Thus, there can be real risk of inaccuracies and bias with the current state of both FR technology and the AI that often powers it.
…
The Illinois BIPA came to the forefront in 2015 when some enterprising lawyers realized a statute could be used to challenge companies such as Facebook and Google. The statute is pretty broad and punitive in its application. It has led to numerous class action lawsuits not only in Illinois, but across the country. A case against Facebook was filed in federal court in California, ultimately settling for $550 million (Patel, et al. v. Facebook, No. 3:15-cv-03747-JD, N.D. Calif.). Facebook previously settled a case with the FTC over its use of facial recognition technology for $5 billion.
In many BIPA lawsuits, standing has been an issue of contention. For some time, there was a split in the Illinois appellate courts about whether a claimant needed to show an actual concrete injury in order to sue under the statute. For example, just because I didn’t give you the written policy, or, I didn’t get your consent before I collected your information, do you have to show some other harm to have standing?
Essentially, if nothing’s happened to you, nobody has sold your information, nobody has stolen your identity and if you haven’t been harmed, do you have the standing to sue? That was a big question until early 2019 when the Illinois Supreme Court, in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., held that the answer was “no.” The Court found that the Illinois General Assembly clarified that as a public policy matter, violating the statute alone, without any further showing of actual harm, or concrete or tangible harm, is sufficient to confer standing upon somebody to sue under BIPA. Once that issue was resolved, it fanned the flames of additional BIPA class actions (Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp., 2019 IL 123186, 432 Ill. Dec. 654, 129 N.E.3d 1197).
Also, check out their webinar.
Mass Tort Emotional & Psychological Claims
Emotional & Psychological Claims in Multi-Plaintiff Toxic Tort Litigation: What attorneys need to know about the scientific and medical aspects of these injuries. On-Demand | Recorded October 27th, 2020 ON DEMAND WEBINAR REGISTRATION Emotional injury claims often arise in toxic torts due to exposure to asbestos, mold, carbon monoxide, and environmental contamination, to name a few. And now, as large swaths of the nation are often engulfed in flame, what physical and emotional effect might manifest from prolonged smoke inhalation? Determining the validity of these injuries and any causal connection is difficult. It requires careful study by truly qualified experts often from various disciplines. When psychological harm exists, it can be debilitating. There is much an attorney should know when wading into these types of claims. How often is there a legitimate injury? What different types of injuries are there? What should attorneys know when working with or challenging psychological experts? How is causation proven or disproven? How are damages determined? Join our panel comprising a forensic neuropsychologist, an industrial and occupational physician, a forensic psychiatrist, and an experienced mass tort practitioner as they share their insights and experiences. Key Points Understanding the different types of psychological injury claims. Understanding the differences between objective injuries that are easy to identify and distinguish, versus subjective injuries such as pain or restricted movement. Distinguishing between real psychological injuries and malingering. Understanding the frequency of valid emotional injuries. Identifying the causal relationship between exposure and health effects. Knowing and understanding key medical studies. Understanding the evidence needed to prove or disprove claims. Evaluating damages, such as treatment costs and the extent of functional impairment. On Demand Webinar Registration Includes Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. ON DEMAND WEBINAR [...]
Organizational Values & Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns
Accommodations. Appropriate accommodation for high-risk employees or employees with family members who are at a heightened risk. Mitigation. Attention to means of mitigating transmission and infection. Tracing. Contact tracing and management of data collected, including health data, as well as responses to employees who refuse to report. Patient Sensitivity. Duty to avoid discrimination and stigmatization. Preparedness. Developing plans to address possibility of re-occurrence in the fall and managing possible outbreaks in company’s offices. On-demand on the Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter as part of the HB catalog. Organizational Values & Coronavirus Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns Produced for Emory University Center for Ethics by HB Litigation Conferences The current pandemic confronts businesses, nonprofit organizations, governments, and the legal profession with innumerable ethical challenges. Management issues and liability concerns, stakeholder demands and legal duties become even more complex in an environment of uncertainty and one where the consequences could result in serious illness or even death. This program seeks to engage the participants in thinking through these challenges and developing processes of ethical response to them. Managers must acknowledge and address the framework of fear associated with the pandemic, ranging from fear of contagion and death to fears of unemployment, childcare, and the duties of home-schooling. Additionally, as the economy reopens there must be serious attention to the processes of doing so. Join Professor Edward L. Queen from Emory University for invaluable insights. Emory's medical team was on the frontline of the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic, which began in December 2013 when an 18-month-old Guinean boy contracted the disease. According to the CDC, the outbreak ended with more than 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths. Eleven people were treated for Ebola in the United States. Edward L. Queen Director of Ethics and Servant Leadership Emory University Professor Edward L. Queen Edward L. Queen is director of the D. Abbott Turner Program in Ethics and Servant Leadership and Coordinator of Undergraduate Studies at Emory University’s Center for Ethics. At Emory he also serves as [...]
The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter
Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don't subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law. Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J. Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.
Settlement Psychology: Who is in Control? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? | Complimentary Webinar
Settlement Psychology Who's in charge? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? Cognitive obstacles to finding common ground. Complimentary On-Demand Webinar From HB! 1 CLE credit CLE questions? CLE@LitigationConferences.com Questions for speakers? Questions@LitigationConferences.com SPEAKERS Jeff Trueman Mediator / Negotiator John Philip Miller Baltimore City Circuit Judge (ret.) This course is also available via the West LegalEdcenter. Improve your negotiation strategy and outcomes. Mediator, arbitrator and settlement conference neutral Jeff Trueman says the lawyer’s mind can sometimes play tricks on them when it comes time to settle a claim. “The central question on the minds of counsel, their clients, and insurance professionals in civil litigation is, of course, ‘What’s the case worth?’ For mature torts there is enough historical settlement and verdict data exist for counsel to argue why a particular case should or should not fit within a certain settlement range. In the midst of these discussions, the human brain plays tricks on us. For example, litigators sometimes assume that their trial experience can determine how jurors will negotiate with one another and resolve factual discrepancies after closing arguments. This assumption is a ‘heuristic’ – a cognitive shortcut called attributional error or illusion of control.” Backed by his decades of psychological and economic sciences research, Trueman says there is a lot of room for attorneys to change their mindset when moving into settlement mode. Litigation Chicken “When differences over case value intensify, litigators return to threats of relinquishing control: ‘Maybe we have to try this case;’ or ‘We feel good about our chances in front of a jury.’ Underneath the games of litigation chicken that are the hallmark of settlement negotiation, heuristics lead to erroneous valuations and assessments of risk.” He says attorney would be well served, and would serve their clients well, if they make adjustments depending on their role at a given point in the process. “Many lawyers default to their role as advocates for legal rights without considering the quality of counsel they give to clients regarding risk management. This plays [...]