WPF comments on the DHS External Biometric Records database

The World Privacy Forum has submitted detailed comments on the US Department of Homeland Security’s External Biometric Records database (EBR database), which DHS describes as a large biometric and demographic database drawn from foreign and domestic sources. WPF has a number of concerns about the proposal, including that the EBR database is slated to be exempted from multiple provisions of the Privacy Act. WPF has additional procedural concerns regarding biometrics and fairness.

The EBR database is primarily a database to be used for law enforcement purposes, among some other purposes, including national security, immigration screening, border enforcement, intelligence, national defense, background investigations relating to national security positions, credentialing, and certain positions of public trust.

In addition to traditional biometric and demographic data, the External Biometric Records database will also include diverse commentary and also derivative analysis, which will not have been collected directly from individuals. Access to the data, the accuracy of data, and many other rights typically associated with data held by the US government under the Privacy Act of 1974 do not apply to the EBR database due to the exemptions DHS has proposed.

One of the more serious concerns WPF has relates to a proposed routine use of the database that would allow DHS to publicly release biometrics, including DNA. WPF is requesting DHS to agree to either greatly narrow its ability to release DNA publicly, or drop DNA from inclusion in the routine uses.

Related Documents:

WPF Comments on the External Biometric Records Database 24 May, 2018

Posted June 1, 2018 in Biometrics, Privacy Act of 1974, Public Comments, US Department of Homeland Security

New Report: Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new WPF report, “Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools.” This report sets out a definition of AI governance tools, documents why and how these tools are critically important for trustworthy AI, and where these tools are around the world. The report also documents problems in some AI governance tools themselves, and suggests pathways to improve AI governance tools and create an evaluative environment to measure their effectiveness. AI systems should not be deployed without simultaneously evaluating the potential adverse impacts of such systems and mitigating their risks, and most of the world agrees about the need to take precautions against the threats posed. The specific tools and techniques that exist to evaluate and measure AI systems for their inclusiveness, fairness, explainability, privacy, safety and other trustworthiness issues — called in the report collectively AI governance tools – can improve such issues. While some AI governance tools provide reassurance to the public and to regulators, the tools too often lack meaningful oversight and quality assessments. Incomplete or ineffective AI governance tools can create a false sense of confidence, cause unintended problems, and generally undermine the promise of AI systems. The report contains rich background details, use cases, potential solutions to the problems discussed in the report, and a global index of AI Governance Tools.
National IDs Around the World — Interactive map

About this Data Visualization: This interactive map displays the presence...
Report: From the Filing Cabinet to the Cloud: Updating the Privacy Act of 1974

This comprehensive report and proposed bill text is focused on the Privacy Act of 1974, an important and early Federal privacy law that applies to the government sector and some contractors. The Privacy Act was written for the 1970s information era -- an era that was characterized by the use of mainframe computers and filing cabinets. Today's digital information era looks much different than the '70s: smart phones are smarter than the old mainframes, and documents are now routinely digitized and stored and perhaps even analyzed in the cloud, among many other changes. The report focuses on why the Privacy Act needs an update that will bring it into this century, and how that could look and work. This work was written by Robert Gellman, and informed by a two-year multi-stakeholder process.