A photo from a summer camp posted to the camp's website so parents can view them. Venture capital-backed Waldo Photos has been selling the service to identify specific children in the flood of photos provided daily to parents by many sleep-away camps. Camps working with the Austin, Texas-based company give parents a private code to sign up. When the camp uploads photos taken during activities to its website, Waldo's facial recognition software scans for matches in the parent-provided headshots. Once it finds a match, the Waldo system (as in "Where's Waldo?") then automatically texts the photos to the child's parents.

Like many parents in the United States, Rob Glaser has been thinking a lot lately about how to keep his kids from getting shot in school. Specifically, he's been thinking of what he can do that doesn't involve getting into a nasty and endless battle over what he calls "the g-word." It's not that Glaser opposes gun control. A steady Democratic donor, Glaser founded the online streaming giant RealNetworks back in the 1990s as a vehicle for broadcasting left-leaning political views. It's just that any conversation about curbing gun rights in America tends to lead more to gridlock and finger-pointing than it does to action.

Facial recognition tech is becoming more sophisticated, with some firms claiming it can even read our emotions and detect suspicious behaviour. But what implications does this have for privacy and civil liberties? Facial recognition tech has been around for decades, but it has been progressing in leaps and bounds in recent years due to advances in computing vision and artificial intelligence (AI), tech experts say. It is now being used to identify people at borders, unlock smart phones, spot criminals, and authenticate banking transactions. But some tech firms are claiming it can also assess our emotional state.

We provide the asymptotic distribution of the major indexes used in the statistical literature to quantify disparate treatment in machine learning. We aim at promoting the use of confidence intervals when testing the so-called group disparate impact. We illustrate on some examples the importance of using confidence intervals and not a single value.

The legal division at ALM Intelligence has released a report, which provides a detailed look at how law firms are affected by the current state of artificial intelligence. Today, like many industries, law firms are faced with having to make critical decisions, adapt to the changing environment, or push onward in a'business as usual' mindset. It should be noted that artificial intelligence does not represent a singular solution to survival. See also: Could AI take over the legal profession? However, embracing the technology will help law firms meet their current and future challenges faster, and will open the doors to ancillary revenue streams.

Over the past few weeks, news about various state governments here in the US using facial recognition technology has caused concerns. Not only is it an invasion of privacy but also something that people feel will result in more racially biased profiling. Imagine what it enables government bodies to do when citizens are tracked, in real-time, following their private choices, actions, and behaviors. Some in the New York Police Department want access to the Department of Motor Vehicles database of driver's license photos as it expands facial recognition technology to such matters as identifying missing persons. But privacy advocates are crying foul.

To find out more, click here. With anti-migrant violence hitting a fever pitch, victims ask why Greek authorities have carried out so few arrests. How a homegrown burger joint pioneered a food revolution and decades later gave a young, politicised class its identity. Kombo Yannick is one of the many African asylum seekers braving the longer Latin America route to the US. Answer as many correct questions in 90 seconds to win the World Cup with your favourite team.

The benefits of autonomous vehicles (AVs) are widely acknowledged, but there are concerns about the extent of these benefits and AV risks and unintended consequences. In this article, we first examine AVs and different categories of the technological risks associated with them. We then explore strategies that can be adopted to address these risks, and explore emerging responses by governments for addressing AV risks. Our analyses reveal that, thus far, governments have in most instances avoided stringent measures in order to promote AV developments and the majority of responses are non-binding and focus on creating councils or working groups to better explore AV implications. The US has been active in introducing legislations to address issues related to privacy and cybersecurity. The UK and Germany, in particular, have enacted laws to address liability issues; other countries mostly acknowledge these issues, but have yet to implement specific strategies. To address privacy and cybersecurity risks strategies ranging from introduction or amendment of non-AV specific legislation to creating working groups have been adopted. Much less attention has been paid to issues such as environmental and employment risks, although a few governments have begun programmes to retrain workers who might be negatively affected.

Microsoft is calling on the U.S. government to regulate facial recognition technology. Microsoft has called on the government to step up and regulate facial recognition technology. In a blog post, Microsoft President Brad Smith called for "thoughtful government regulation" and "the development of norms" around using facial recognition technology. "Without a thoughtful approach, public authorities may rely on flawed or biased technological approaches to decide who to track, investigate or even arrest for a crime," Smith wrote. Smith also said Microsoft, which has supplied facial recognition to some businesses, already has rejected some customers' requests to deploy the technology in situations involving "human rights risks."

A Microsoft blog called out elected governmental officials to draft laws that would regulate the usage of facial recognition technology. They stressed the need for the development of norms based on acceptable uses. Microsoft gave examples such as government tracking of citizens over the course of months, stores tracking shoppers every visit to see which shelf they visited without notifying them of the surveillance and more. Also the technology exhibits bias in certain body features so it could create a society where certain groups are targeted because they are simply easier to track. Lastly Microsoft doesn't feel tech companies should be the ones making the rules as some have suggested.