An ecosystems approach to biometric regulation

WPF is pleased to announce the publication of new work by our Executive Director, Pam Dixon, in the March 2022 Turkish Policy Quarterly. “This journal article is an outgrowth of long work looking at what could help in the biometric ecosystem to address and mitigate the consequential risks of biometrics when used singly and in combination,” Dixon said. “We must begin thinking about biometric regulation at the ecosystem level, otherwise there will be fragmented policy solutions that create additional and unnecessary risks and harms.”

The article discusses the problems with addressing biometric systems and risks in isolation, for example, by focusing on a single modality such as face recognition or DNA or even on a particular use case. Instead, the article points out why it is essential to contextualize biometric systems in the broader context of all biometric modalities, and view biometrics as a complete ecosystem of multiple biometrics. The article then discusses the many administrative and procedural controls that are utilized in globally harmonized chemical safety regulations, and how that model could be adapted for a multi-biometric ecosystem.

“The rich, adaptable, comprehensive, and yet granular chemical safety models in use today provide a pathway to move biometric regulation away from the fragmented and ineffective current practices that rely on consent, bans, and single-modality regulations. It is essential that complex biometric ecosystems are regulated consistently, comprehensively, and in a manner that is harmonized across jurisdictions so that biometrics are not subject to fragmentation that results in inconsistent or weak data governance, security, and privacy protections. Biometrics, as a technology of concern, merits high levels of attention to administrative and procedural controls, as well as a focus on harmonization on key aspects of regulation, such as agreement on definitions.”

WPF published early work in 2020 looking at how the structure of safety regulations could be adapted for the biometric context.. The article for Turkish Policy Quarterly takes on a fuller analysis of these ideas.

Turkish Policy Quarterly, Volume 20, Issue 4. March 2022. Regulating and harmonizing biometric ecosystems to address the full spectrum of risks using global safety models and controls, Pam Dixon, auth.
The March 2022 issue of Turkish Policy Quarterly is focused on AI and Democratic Values, and includes articles by AI luminaries; see the full issue here.

Posted March 8, 2022 in AI, Biometrics, Data Ecosystems, Governance
Tags: Ecosystems

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.

An ecosystems approach to biometric regulation

Turkish Policy Quarterly, Volume 20, Issue 4. March 2022. Regulating and harmonizing biometric ecosystems to address the full spectrum of risks using global safety models and controls, Pam Dixon, auth.

The March 2022 issue of Turkish Policy Quarterly is focused on AI and Democratic Values, and includes articles by AI luminaries; see the full issue here.