Despite facial recognition's seal of approval from law enforcement agencies across the U.S., recent experiments show the technology is far from infallible. In a demonstration by the American Civil Liberties Union, about 26 California lawmakers were misidentified by face-matching software built by Amazon, putting the rate of a mismatch at about 1 in 5. The results mimic a similar test done by the advocacy group in 2018 when a test saw Amazon's software, called'Rekognition', mismatch 28 members of congress -- many of whom were people of color. The ACLU says a test of Amazon's facial recognition software misidentified 1 in 5 lawmakers fed into its system Similarly, the software attempted to match their head shots against a database of known criminals -- a process that has become commonplace for the at least 200 departments across the U.S. who use Rekognition software. According to the LA Times, the test is fueling calls from California legislators to limit the technology's application in a law enforcement capacity, including its integration with police body cameras.

Video has become an increasingly crucial tool for law enforcement, whether it comes from security cameras, police-worn body cameras, a bystander's smartphone, or another source. But a combination of "deepfake" video manipulation technology and security issues that plague so many connected devices has made it difficult to confirm the integrity of that footage. A new project suggests the answer lies in cryptographic authentication. Called Amber Authenticate, the tool is meant to run in the background on a device as it captures video. At regular, user-determined intervals, the platform generates "hashes"--cryptographically scrambled representations of the data--that then get indelibly recorded on a public blockchain.

Face recognition is a stark example of a technology that is being deployed faster than society and the law can adopt new norms and rules. It lets governments and private enterprise track citizens anywhere there is a camera, even if they're not carrying any devices. In general, people who are in public don't have any legal expectation of privacy and can be photographed or recorded. Because of this, the technology has the potential to be more intrusive than phone tracking, the legality of which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide. There are only two states, Texas and Illinois, that limit private companies' ability to track people via their faces.

Body cameras worn by police in the US could soon have in-built facial recognition software, sparking'serious concerns' among civil liberties groups. The controversial technology, branded'categorically unethical', would automatically scan and identify every single person law enforcement interacts with. It is intended to help officers track down suspects more effectively, but experts are worried it could lead to false arrests and suffer from inbuilt racial and other biases. If developed, the equipment could become a regular sight on the streets of cities across the world. The manufacturer behind the move has now brought together a panel of experts to discuss the implications of the'Minority Report' style technology.

The country's biggest seller of police body cameras on Thursday convened a corporate board devoted to the ethics and expansion of artificial intelligence, a major new step toward offering controversial facial-recognition technology to police forces nationwide. Axon, the maker of Taser electroshock weapons and the wearable body cameras now used by most major American city police departments, has voiced interest in pursuing face recognition for its body-worn cameras. The technology could allow officers to scan and recognize the faces of potentially everyone they see while on patrol. A growing number of surveillance firms and tech start-ups are racing to integrate face recognition and other AI capabilities into real-time video. The board's first meeting will likely presage an imminent showdown over the rapidly developing technology. Shortly after the board was announced, a group of 42 civil rights, technology and privacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP, sent members a letter voicing "serious concerns with the current direction of Axon's product development."

The first generation of police body cameras was introduced in 2005 in Great Britain. Their primary task was, and still is, to record police interactions with the public as well as to gather evidence at crime scenes. To separate the irrelevant data from incriminating evidence, every recording needs to be reviewed and edited. Now imagine sifting through hundreds of hours of police footage, looking for a specific piece of information, such as a verbal exchange between an officer and a suspect, a clear shot of license plates, or a suspect entering a particular building or meeting a particular person. It's a rather time-consuming task, so a lot of this footage ends up archived to be reviewed later, forfeiting potentially valuable or time-sensitive evidence. The solution could be the use of artificial intelligence.

The first generation of police body cameras was introduced in 2005 in Great Britain. Their primary task was, and still is, to record police interactions with the public as well as to gather evidence at crime scenes. To separate the irrelevant data from incriminating evidence, every recording needs to be reviewed and edited. Now imagine sifting through hundreds of hours of police footage, looking for a specific piece of information, such as a verbal exchange between an officer and a suspect, a clear shot of license plates, or a suspect entering a particular building or meeting a particular person. It's a rather time-consuming task, so a lot of this footage ends up archived to be reviewed later, forfeiting potentially valuable or time-sensitive evidence. The solution could be the use of artificial intelligence.