The UK's biggest police force is set to significantly expand its facial recognition capabilities before the end of this year. New technology will enable London's Metropolitan Police to process historic images from CCTV feeds, social media and other sources in a bid to track down suspects. But critics warn the technology has "eye-watering possibilities for abuse" and may entrench discriminatory policing. In a little-publicised decision made at the end of August, the Mayor of London's office approved a proposal allowing the Met to boost its surveillance technology. The proposal says that in the coming months the Met will start using Retrospective Facial Recognition (RFR), as part of a £3 million, four-year deal with Japanese tech firm NEC Corporation.

Earlier this year, the independent research organisation of which I am the Director, London-based Ada Lovelace Institute, hosted a panel at the world's largest AI conference, CogX, called The Ethics Panel to End All Ethics Panels. The title referenced both a tongue-in-cheek effort at self-promotion, and a very real need to put to bed the seemingly endless offering of panels, think-pieces, and government reports preoccupied with ruminating on the abstract ethical questions posed by AI and new data-driven technologies. We had grown impatient with conceptual debates and high-level principles. And we were not alone. It supersedes the two waves that came before it: the first wave, defined by principles and dominated by philosophers, and the second wave, led by computer scientists and geared towards technical fixes.

Earlier this year, the independent research organisation of which I am the Director, London-based Ada Lovelace Institute, hosted a panel at the world's largest AI conference, CogX, called The Ethics Panel to End All Ethics Panels. The title referenced both a tongue-in-cheek effort at self-promotion, and a very real need to put to bed the seemingly endless offering of panels, think-pieces, and government reports preoccupied with ruminating on the abstract ethical questions posed by AI and new data-driven technologies. We had grown impatient with conceptual debates and high-level principles. And we were not alone. It supersedes the two waves that came before it: the first wave, defined by principles and dominated by philosophers, and the second wave, led by computer scientists and geared towards technical fixes. Third-wave ethical AI has seen a Dutch Court shut down an algorithmic fraud detection system, students in the UK take to the streets to protest against algorithmically-decided exam results, and US companies voluntarily restrict their sales of facial recognition technology.

WASHINGTON – The House Ethics Committee is warning lawmakers not to share doctored images or videos that could "erode public trust, effect public discourse, or sway an election," guidance that comes during a proliferation of online misinformation in the run-up to the 2020 elections. In a memo sent to House members Tuesday, the committee said lawmakers or staffers could be found in violation of House ethics rules and subject to disciplinary proceedings for posting content intended to mislead the public. "Members have a duty, and a First Amendment right, to contribute to the public discourse," the authors of the memo wrote. "However, manipulation of images and videos that are intended to mislead the public can harm that discourse and reflect discreditably on the House." It's the first time the committee has admonished members of Congress on the use of fake images and audio on social media, though the new guidelines may be difficult to enforce because of a loophole allowing fake images when used for satire or parody.

Facial recognition software should only be used by police if they can prove it will not introduce gender or racial bias to operations, an ethics panel has said. A report by the London policing ethics panel, which was set up to advise City Hall, concluded that while there were "important ethical issues to be addressed" in the use of the controversial technology, they did not justify not using it at all. Live facial recognition (LFR) technology is designed to check people passing a camera in a public place against images on police databases, which can include suspects, missing people or persons of interest to the police. The technology has been used to scan faces in large crowds in public places such as streets and shopping centres, and in football crowds and at events such as the Notting Hill carnival. The Metropolitan police have carried out 10 trials using the technology across London, the most recent being in Romford town centre in mid-February.

Just a week after it was announced, Google's new AI ethics board is already in trouble. The board, founded to guide "responsible development of AI" at Google, would have had eight members and met four times over the course of 2019 to consider concerns about Google's AI program. Those concerns include how AI can enable authoritarian states, how AI algorithms produce disparate outcomes, whether to work on military applications of AI, and more. Of the eight people listed in Google's initial announcement, one (privacy researcher Alessandro Acquisti) has announced on Twitter that he won't serve, and two others are the subject of petitions calling for their removal -- Kay Coles James, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, and Dyan Gibbens, CEO of drone company Trumbull Unmanned. Thousands of Google employees have signed onto the petition calling for James's removal.

SAP has created an AI ethics panel to guide its use of machine-learning technology. If only it had a similar committee for fraud allegations: it might have avoided the corruption scandal engulfing it in South Africa. The German ERP giant – which is accused of kicking back $2m to secure state contracts – claimed it is the first European biz to create a external artificial intelligence ethics board: a five-person committee that includes technical experts and specialists in public policy, ethics, and bioethics. However, while several of them possess solid IT credentials, there's no one with a background in AI. Rather, expertise in the evolving field will come from inside SAP.