Elon Musk one of 116 experts calling on UN to ban autonomous weapons
Tesla's Elon Musk and Google's Mustafa Suleyman are among 116 AI experts who are calling on the United Nations to introduce measures to ban the development and usage of autonomous weapons.
Musk has been vocal about his belief in the need for regulation on artificial intelligence, previously going head-to-head with Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg on the matter.
Founders of the group sent a letter to the UN urging the organisation to put regulations to place to prevent an arms race in the "third revolution in warfare."
In the letter, the group wrote: "Lethal autonomous weapons will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever."
"These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways."
"We do not have long to act. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close."
Calls for the addition of autonomous weapons to the UN's banned list alongside chemical weapons have grown louder, with Musk one of those leading the movement.
In 2014, Musk called AI "our biggest existential threat" and warned about "scenarios like those seen in the Terminator movies."
Tweeting on August 12, the Tesla and OpenAI founder said that artificial intelligence has "vastly more risk than North Korea," alongside a picture of a poster proclaiming 'In the end, the machines will win.'
ICO warns of privacy concerns on the use of LFR technology
“I am deeply concerned about the potential for live facial recognition (LFR) technology to be used inappropriately, excessively, or even recklessly. When sensitive personal data is collected on a mass scale without people’s knowledge, choice or control, the impacts could be significant,” said Elizabeth Denham, the UK’s Information Commissioner.
Denham explained that with any new technology, building public trust and confidence in the way people’s information is used is crucial so the benefits derived from the technology can be fully realised.
“It is not my role to endorse or ban a technology but, while this technology is developing and not widely deployed, we have an opportunity to ensure it does not expand without due regard for data protection,” Denham added.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has said it will work with organisations to ensure that the use of LFR is lawful, and that a fair balance is struck between their own purposes and the interests and rights of the public. They will also engage with Government, regulators and industry, as well as international colleagues to make sure data protection and innovation can continue to work hand in hand.
What is live facial recognition?
Facial recognition is the process by which a person can be identified or recognised from a digital facial image. Cameras are used to capture these images and FRT software measures and analyses facial features to produce a biometric template. This typically enables the user to identify, authenticate or verify, or categorise individuals.
Live facial recognition (LFR) is a type of FRT that allows this process to take place automatically and in real-time. LFR is typically deployed in a similar way to traditional CCTV in that it is directed towards everyone in a particular area rather than specific individuals. It can capture the biometric data of all individuals passing within range of the camera indiscriminately, as opposed to more targeted “one-to-one” data processing. This can involve the collection of biometric data on a mass scale and there is often a lack of awareness, choice or control for the individual in this process.
Why is biometric data particularly sensitive?
Biometrics are physical or behavioural human characteristics that can be used to digitally identify a person to grant access to systems, devices, or data. Biometric data extracted from a facial image can be used to uniquely identify an individual in a range of different contexts. It can also be used to estimate or infer other characteristics, such as their age, sex, gender, or ethnicity.
The security of the biometric authentication data is vitally important, even more than the security of passwords, since passwords can be easily changed if they are exposed. A fingerprint or retinal scan, however, is immutable.
The UK courts have concluded that “like fingerprints and DNA [a facial biometric template] is information of an “intrinsically private” character.” LFR can collect this data without any direct engagement with the individual. Given that LFR relies on the use of sensitive personal data, the public must have confidence that its use is lawful, fair, transparent, and meets the other standards set out in data protection legislation.