F facial Recognition Technology. They testified before the House Oversight and reform committee. Working on e is legislation to address the emerging technology. Good morning, everyone, and is out objection the chair authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. Would now like to recognize myself to give an opening statement. Today the committee is holding on a critical ng issue. Facial recognition tech. Its clear that despite the sectors expanded use of technology, its just not ready primetime. During this hearing, well private sectors development, use and sale of technology as well as its partnerships with Government Entities, using this technology. We learned from our first may 22 of 2019 that he use of facial Recognition Technology can severely impact American Civil Rights and liberties, including the right to privacy. Protection and equal under the law. We learned during our second federal, n june 4 how state and local Government Entities use this technology on wide scale. Yet provide very little why itsncy on how and being used or on security measures to protect sensitive data. Despite these concerns, we see facial Recognition Technology and more in our everyday lives. Used in ology is being schools, grocery stores, irports, malls, theme parks, stadiums and on our phones, social media platforms, door and even in ootage hiring decisions and its used by Law Enforcement. This technology is completely unregulated at the federal level resulting in some questionable applications. Rous 2019, National Institutes of standards and technology issued a new report that commercial facial recognition algorithms minorities,d racial women, children, and elderly individuals at substantially rates. I look forward to discussing the doctor and director of nists Information Technology laboratory, who is today. Us i also look forward to hearing rom our expert panel from academia, industry, and the advocacy community, on and mended actions policymakers should take into account to address potential harm based on these findings. Facial ination of Recognition Technology is a bipartisan effort. Ranking member jordans tireless and ongoing this issue. We have a responsibility to not innovation, but and otect the privacy safety of Merrill Lynch consumers that. Means educating our fellow and on the ican people different uses of the technology and distinguishing between subjective identification, and surveillance uses that. Lso means exploring what protections are currently in place. To protect civil rights, privacy, Data Security and as ent misidentification well as providing ecommendations for future legislation and regulation. N that vain i would like to announce today that our committee is committed to recognition acial legislation in the very near future and our hope is that we do that in a truly bipartisan way. We have had several forwardtions and i look towards thatgether goal. I now recognized the distinguish asked Ranking Member, jordan, stadium. Opening thank you, madam chair, we appreciate your willingness to ork with us on this legislation. We have a bill we want to talk about as well, facial recognition is a powerful new thats being widely used by both Government Agencies and private sector companies. Its sales have experience add 20 yeartoyear growth since expected he market is to be valued at 8. 9 billion by 2022. Ncrease gi, local state and governmental industries are with little. D. , but to know accountability. The this Technology Government can capture faces in public places, identify individual, which allows the tracking of our movements, patterns, and behavior. Of this is currently happening without legislation, legitimate government functions with american Civil Liberties. That must change. While this hearing is about uses of facial unclearion i have to be that i have no desire to enhance it in the private sector. Promise iate the great that this Technology Holds for making our lives better. Improved Data Security and led to greater efficiency and verification and prevents tion that theft and protects consumers. He urgent issue, the urgent issue we must tackle is reigning in the governments unchecked se of this technology when impairs our freedoms and liberties. About s became concerned government use of facial Recognition Technology after to surveyorwas used protests in his district related to the death of freddie gray. A deeply s as encroachment on their freedom of speech and association and i more. Nt agree this issue transcends politics. It doesnt matter if its a trump rally or a Bernie Sanders rally. The idea of american citizens for tracked and cataloged merely showing their faces in public is deeply troubling. Imperative that congress understands the effects of this technology on our constitutional liberties. The invasiveness of facial Recognition Technology has a number of localities to ban its government using s from buying or digital facial recognition for any purpose. Toens to create a patchwork of laws and may hinder the use of technology. An rtunately this is not issue we should leave to the courts. Thatesents novel questions are best answered by congressional policy making which can establish a national consensus. The unique governmentwide focus of this committee allows us to to address islation facial Recognition Technology here at the federal level. We know that a number of federal agencies possess facial Recognition Technology it without guidance from Congress Despite its serious implications on our first and amendment rights. At a bare minimum we must understand how and when federal agencies are using this type of what purpose. For currently we do not know even this basic information. Our committee has jurisdiction over the entire federal governments use of we must technology, start by pursuing policy address this fundamental information. It is our intention as well to introduce legislation. Work with both sides here, trying to work ogether that will provide transparency an accountability with respect to the federal and use ofs purchase this technology. Want to thank you madam chairwoman and i look forward to hearing our Witnesses Today and thank you for being here. Before we get to the witnesses, i would like to make consent request. I would like to insert into the aclu d a report from the hich found that amazons Recognition Technology misidentified 28 members of as other individuals ho had been arrested for crimes. Including john lewis, a national legend, a National Civil rights leader. So i would like to place that nto the record, and i would also like to mention that three members of this committee were misidentified. Gomez, mr. Clay, and mr. They were misidentified, and is ed that this technology not ready for primetime along with 11 republican members of like to, so i would now colleague, mr. Gomez, who has personal experience with this for an opening statement. You, madam chair. First, this is the Committee Committee is holding its third hearing on this issue and up until two years ago this even on my radar, aclu conducted this test which falsely matched my identity with someone who crime. Ted a then all of a sudden my ears doubt i but i had no was misidentified because of the color of my skin than anything else. O as i started to learn and do research on this issue my concerns only grew. I found out that its being used in so many different ways, not only in Law Enforcement, at the federal level, the local level, its also being used when it comes to apartment buildings. To door bells, when it comes to shoppers. When it comes to a variety of things. But at the same time, this technology is fundamentally flawed. Who gets pulled over by the police, in certain not a big deal. In other areas it could mean think death, if people youre a violent felon. So we need to start taking this seriously. Probably doesnt rank in the top three issues of any in the United States, but as it continues to be used and it continues to have issues, there will be more and more people who are misidentified, and more and more eople who are questioning if their liberties and their freedoms are starting to be fault of their own, just some algorithm misidentified them as somebody committed a crime in the past. This is something we need to aise an alarm and thats what these hearings are doing in a bipartisan way to make sure that American Public doesnt stumble into the dark, and all of a a den, our freedoms are little bit less. Our liberties are a little bit having these start important discussions, in a figure out ay, to how and what can the federal government do. What can congress do . What is our responsibility . The ith that, i appreciate chairs commitment to legislation. Also, i appreciate the ranking commitment to legislation, because i know this issue is a tough one and it can bipartisan in a way. With that i yield back. Now recognize mr. Meadows of North Carolina for an opening statement. You, madam chair. Oth of you, thank you for your leadership on this important issue. Things that i would highlight. Certainly we know mr. Gomez and there is certainly no background that he of, being be accused involved with. So i want to stress that his character is of the upmost to us this side of the aisle and i say that in just because one of the issues we need to focus on and this is very important to me. His is where conservatives and progressives come together. Its on developing our civil and that right to privacy. I agree with the chairwoman and Ranking Member and mr. Gomez, and others where weve about d conversations addressing this issue, to focus only on the false positives is though. Roblem for us, i can tell you, technology is moving so fast that the false eliminated ll be within months, im here to say if we only focus on the fact getting it right with facial recognition weve missed the whole argument at use technology is moving warp speed and what well find is, not only will they my concern is not concern that they improperly identify mr. Gomez, my concern they will properly identify mr. Gomez and use it in manner. Ng so the witnesses that are here today, what i would ask all of we put a is how can safeguard on, to make sure that not a fishing expedition t the cost of our Civil Liberties. Thats essentially what were talking about. Were talking about scanning features, andcial even if they got it a hundred percent right, how should that used . How should we ultimately allow in government to be involved that . Nd so im extremely concerned that as we look at this issue, that we have to come together in way to figure this out. I think it would be headlines on he New York Times and washington post, if you saw coming of both parties to an agreement on how we are to address this issue. Committed to doing that. Madam chair, i was fully predecessor, your he and i both agreed at the very first time that this was brought p that we had to do something and i know the Ranking Member hares that, so im fully engaged. Lets make sure that we get something and get something quickly. And if we can do that, you know, start i think if we focusing, again, on just the accuracy, then they are going to accurate. That its and but what standards should there . E the accuracy should it be a hundred percent . Should it be 95 think when mr. Gomez actually identified, threshold was brought down to 80 . Get a lot of o false positive when is that happens but we need to help set the standards and make sure that government is not using this in an improper fashion, and with yield back. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I would now like to introduce witnesses. We are privileged to have a rich witnesses onexpert our panel today. Renda leon is a Senior Council and director of a. I. And Ethics Future of Privacy Forum. Romine, director of National Institute of standards technology. Whittaker daniel castro, and jake parker is the senior director of government relations, at the Security Industry association. If you would all rise and raise hand, ill begin by swearing you in. Whittaker da castro, and jake parker is the senior director of government [sworn in] witnesses all answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated. Future ofvery, very sensitive, so please speak directly into them and without objection your written testimony will be made part of our record, and with that, ms. Leon, youre now recognized for five minutes. Thank youvery, very for the y considering d for the commercial use of facialrom Recognition Technology. This is an Privacy Forum is a important ce Nonprofit Organization that support of emerging technologies. We believe that the power of information is a net benefit to society and that it can be appropriately managed to control risks as a catalyst for leadership and scholarship advancing principle data processes in to individuals and groups. Biometric systems such as those recognition Al Technology have the potential to and ce Consumer Services improve security but must be designed, implemented and awareness with full of the challenges they present. Today my testimony focuses on of blishing the importance technical accuracy in discussing face image based systems benefits and e harms to individuals and groups, and recommending expressed for any s the default commercial use of identification or verification systems. Specifics of the how a Technology Works is critical for effectively risks. Ing the relevant not every whittaker camerabas a facial recognition system. Facial recognition system creates unique templates stored database. Olled these databases are used then to oneonone son in a or identify a one to many search. If a match is found that person is identified with greater or lesser certainty depending on the system in use, thresholds and settings in place and the operators expertise. Thus Recognition Systems involve matching two images, without they do l processing not impute other characteristics to the person or image. Therea great deal of confusion in the media particularly in contrast to facial characterization or software, ection which attempts to analyze a single image and inpretty image eristics to that race. Ding gender and these systems may or may not link date to pick individuals but they carry their own significant risks. And acy requirements capabilities for recognition and characterization systems vary with context. The level of certainty acceptable for verifying an individuals identity when mobile device is below the standard that should be required for verifying that individual is included on a terrorist watch list. N addition, quality varies widely among suppliers based on detection, diversity of Training Data sets and the third, tetting methodologies. Reflgts their ability to meet these goals. For example, the most recent in highlights accuracy outcomes that were a hundred times worse for certain groups achieved st systems results across demographic groups with variations that were undetectable. However, the real harm arising recognition te and and characterization systems cannot be ignored. Individuals already use facial to open their phones, access bank accounts, or photos. E their organizational benefits include more secure Facility Access, functions spitality and personalized experiences. New uses are being imagined all the time. The potential harms are real. In addition to inaccuracy, about realtime surveillance societies have led individuals and policymakers to significant reservations. The decision by some [sworn in] let the record show that the municipalities to legislatively use of facial Recognition Systems by Government Agencies reflects heightened concerns. The ethical considerations of and how to use facial Recognition Systems exceed privacy considerations and the egulatory challenges are complex. Even relatively straightforward legal liability questions prove parties bearn many some share of responsibility. When considering the scope of this ries hoping to use technology, from educational and Financial Institutions to retail the potential impact on individuals are mind boggling. Many technologies, facial recognition applications offer benefits and generate on context. Tracking online preferences and ersonalizing Consumer Experiences are features some people value but others strongly oppose. Options closely to the appropriate consent level is essential. Fpf prefers a comprehensive privacy bill to data t all sensitive including biometric we recognize may choose to consider Technology Specific bills. We provide a useful model in requiring the defaults for commercia