This is the fifth blogpost in a series on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights. Following Data & Society's AI & Human Rights Workshop in April, several participants continued to reflect on the convening and comment on the key issues that were discussed. The following is a summary of articles written by workshop attendees Bendert Zevenbergen, Elizabeth Eagen, and Aubra Anthony. In Marrying Ethics and Human Rights for AI Scrutiny, Bendert Zevenbergen (Princeton University) responds to a post by Christiaan van Veen and Corinne Cath, in which they advocate the value of applying a human rights framework in the development and deployment of AI. Both articles stemmed from workshop debates that considered the relevance of an ethical versus a human rights perspective in AI design and governance.

Microsoft has updated it's facial recognition technology in an attempt to make it less'racist'. It follows a study published in March that criticised the technology for being able to more accurately recognise the gender of people with lighter skin tones. The system was found to perform best on males with lighter skin and worst on females with darker skin. The problem largely comes down to the data being used to train the AI system not containing enough images of people with darker skin tones. Experts from the computing firm say their tweaks have significantly reduced these errors, by up to 20 times for people with darker faces.

This tampered image (left) can be detected by noting visual artifacts (red rectangle, showing the unnaturally high contrast along the baseball player's edges), compared to authentic regions (the parking lot background); and by noting noise pattern inconsistencies between the tampered regions and the background (as seen in "Noise" image). The "ground-truth" image is the outline of the added (fake) image used in the experiment. Thanks to user-friendly image editing software like Adobe Photoshop, it's becoming increasingly difficult and time-consuming to spot some deceptive image manipulations. Now, funded by DARPA, researchers at Adobe and the University of Maryland, College Park have turned to AI to detect the more subtle methods now used in doctoring images. What used to take an image-forensic expert several hours to do can now be done in seconds with AI, says Vlad Morariu, PhD, a senior research scientist at Adobe.

At its core, innovation is about solving problems and building solutions to address common challenges. At the risk of stating the obvious, the enactment of the most comprehensive tax reform in more than 30 years has created a host of new challenges for companies. Technology -- including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing -- is absolutely part of the solution that enables companies to evolve and meet the challenges brought on by tax reform. All it takes is a little automation inside the finance function. The impact of tax reform goes well beyond re-calculating taxes owed.

The South Bend Tribune reports the lawsuit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana. In addition to Notre Dame's abortion policies, it challenges the Trump administration's interim rules allowing universities to disregard a requirement of the Affordable Care Act that health plans cover birth control for women without out-of-pocket costs.

Artificial intelligence may put an end to a long-running industry: human trafficking. The average age a minor enters the sex trade in the U.S. is 12 to 14 years old–many of the victims being runaway girls who were sexually abused. Thankfully, Attorney Generals in the U.S. and Mexico are planning to implement a new system that will help to locate victims of human trafficking. Trust Stamp, an Atlanta-based startup, will be providing the'meat and potatoes' of the life-saving technology. According to the company website, "[Trust Stamp] creates proprietary artificial intelligence solutions; researching and leveraging facial biometric science and wide-scale data mining to deliver insightful identity & trust predictions while identifying and defending against fraudulent identity attacks."

The Orlando Police Department said it would not immediately renew a pilot program with Amazon.com for controversial facial-recognition technology, a decision that civil rights advocates claimed as a victory. Orlando had deployed software, known as Rekognition, in five cameras at police headquarters and three cameras downtown during a six-month trial period. "The City of Orlando is always looking for new solutions to further our ability to keep our residents and visitors safe," the city of Orlando and the Orlando Police Department said in a joint statement Monday. "Partnering with innovative companies to test new technology -- while also ensuring we uphold privacy laws and in no way violate the rights of others -- is critical to us as we work to further keep our community safe." The existence of the pilot program was first revealed last month, when the American Civil Liberties Union published documents detailing Amazon's sale of powerful facial-recognition tools to several law enforcement agencies, including in Orlando and Washington County, Ore.

Florida has stopped testing Amazon's facial recognition program after rights groups raised concerns that the service could be used in ways that could violate civil liberties. Orlando ended a pilot program last week after its contract with Amazon.com Inc to use its Rekognition service expired. 'Partnering with innovative companies to test new technology - while also ensuring we uphold privacy laws and in no way violate the rights of others - is critical to us as we work to further keep our community safe,' the city and the Orlando Police Department said in a joint statement Monday. Orlando was one of several U.S. jurisdictions that Amazon has pitched its service to since unveiling it in late 2016 as a way to detect offensive content and secure public safety.

Google employees have spoken out against the project and their opposition ultimately led to the company deciding not to renew the contract when it expires next year. Now, former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, who started the Project Maven initiative, is saying he's "alarmed" by Google's decision to walk away from the program. Bloomberg reports that Work shared his concerns about the move during an event on tech in the military held today in Washington. "I fully agree that it might wind up with us taking a shot, but it could easily save lives. I believe the Google employees created an enormous moral hazard for themselves."

Certain statements in this press release constitute "forward-looking statements," within the meaning of federal securities laws, including statements related to ICP technology, including financial projections related thereto and potential market opportunity, plans and prospects and other statements containing the words "anticipate," "intend," "may," "plan," "predict," "will," "would," "could," "should," and similar expressions, constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company's actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors. Factors that could cause future results to materially differ from the recent results or those projected in forward-looking statements include the known risks, uncertainties and other factors described in the Company's definitive proxy statement filed on May 29, 2018, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 and on the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 as well as the Company's prior filings and from time to time in the Company's subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any change in such factors, risks and uncertainties may cause the actual results, events and performance to differ materially from those referred to in such statements. All information in this press release is as of the date of the release and the Company does not undertake any duty to update this information, including any forward-looking statements, unless required by law.