Uncategorized

Executive Summary:

Facial recognition technology (FRT) are interwoven into contemporary society, enabling perpetual digital surveillance of over 64 million Americans. FRTs are inaccurate, unregulated, and legally unaccountable. Historical patterns of biased policing intersect to create a biometric arsenal where African Americans, Latinx, and Women are mistakenly matched at higher rates. Using existing systems of accuracy, auditability, and accountability, the DOJ must create a precedent for law enforcement to harness the benefits of FRTs that minimize the threat to an individual’s civil liberties and rights.

 

Introduction: 

As FRT increasingly becomes more used by law enforcement, so do public concerns regarding the fairness of trials and the protection of constitutional rights. FRT inaccuracy and inaudibility pose a direct threat to Americans’ civil rights, liberties, and privacy, while the lack of legal accountability indirectly impacts marginalized communities.

The Problem:

It is challenging to regulate the collection of images of one’s face, and have created a federal database overrepresenting African Americans, Latinx, and Indigenous communities more than white communities. Black individuals are five times more likely to be stopped by police officers than white individuals, and incorporating FRT into a system with existing systemic discrimination enables innovative forms of precise discrimination. This is reflected in the demographics of the United States incarcerated population, where Black and Latino beings make up 56% of the incarcerated population but only 32% of the overall population.  The excessive policing of certain groups increases the chance of early criminal legal contact, furthering a cycle of entrapment within the criminal legal system. Examining these consequences in a court of law, FRT evidence favors the prosecution. It creates an uneven playing field where more and more individuals are denied their constitutional right to a fair trial.

The Solutions:

The National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) can test for accuracy and racial bias. As this text exists, the DOJ must mandate entities using FRT programs to participate in NIST accuracy and racial bias tests. The results should be publicly reported and aligned with the standard of accuracy provided by the NIST for continued usage by law enforcement.

Eyewitnesses are pivotal in administering justice, but eyewitness accounts are not perfect. Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in more than 75% of the first 183 DNA exonerations in the United States. FRT is similar to human-based eyewitness accounts. Thus, the DOJ must require all law enforcement agencies to adopt and apply the DOJ Procedures for Conducting a Photo Array to facial scans. These measures decrease the chance of mistakenly identifying an innocent person and align facial scans to the same standard as eyewitness accounts.

Lastly, existing legal precedents lack provisions for modern tools like FRT. Brady v Maryland established the “Brady Rule”, which mandates the prosecution to disclose “exculpatory” evidence. This adaptation of a prior legal precedent establishes a standard of materiality that can be applied to forthcoming technologies, ensuring legal accountability for digitally derived evidence. If Brady counts human witness identification as material that establishes probable cause, the same should be applied to facial scans obtained through FRT.  This adaptation protects the state from future legal challenges and the defense in providing defendants with a fair trial utilizing all necessary information to establish innocence.

Conclusion:

Plessy v Ferguson stated new technology necessitates evolution and more protective constitutional analysis, and United States v. Jones echoed these concerns regarding digital policing technologies. FRT enhances law enforcement and the state’s capabilities, but if misused, it negatively impacts specific groups of people and their constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties. For FRT to be an equitable and sustainable tool for the criminal legal system, we must adapt to technological revolutions that positively benefit our society.

To the stakeholders and vibrant community of Sicily, and those invested in the sustainable development of the region,

It’s no secret that Sicily stands at a pivotal moment in its infrastructural evolution. The region, rich in culture and history, has reached a crossroads where the allure of mega-projects often overshadows the pressing need for foundational development. This is exemplified by the current debate surrounding the Strait of Messina Bridge—a colossal engineering undertaking projected to cost a staggering €14.6 billion.

The bridge, as awe-inspiring as it might be, spotlights a more profound dilemma. Should Sicily pursue this symbol of engineering might and unification while the region grapples with economic disparities and infrastructural deficiencies that impede daily life and economic growth?

The answer might lie in recalibrating priorities towards the immediate and urgent. Sicily’s GDP per capita lingers at a concerning 38% below the national average. Essential initiatives, like the Siracusa-Gela Autostrada highway and the Palermo-Messina high-speed rail, are long overdue. The Siracusa-Gela A18 Highway, for instance, began construction 60 years ago and remains unfinished, and the high-speed railway that should connect its major cities lags significantly behind its completion date.

Let’s focus on these projects—avenues of connectivity that promise significant economic stimulus. The high-speed railway alone, with investments already tallying up to €11.2 billion, has the potential to transform intra-island movement and trade. Current trains in Sicily max out at 90 km/hr, while their northern neighbors speed along at 400 km/hr. Closing this gap is not just a matter of convenience; it’s about economic parity and social cohesion. Additionally, the underutilization of allocated funds for Sicily stands as a testament to a need for change. Only 0.8% of these funds have been deployed towards the infrastructural improvement, while other foundational aspects of Sicilian life, such as education and healthcare, too cry out for attention and investment.

What we propose is not just a pause but a strategic pivot. By sidelining the Strait of Messina Bridge, at least momentarily, and channeling resources and energy into these critical projects, we can lay a robust foundation for the future. This is not about abandoning ambition but about aligning it with the immediate needs of the people.

A balance must be struck—a blend of infrastructural development that respects and enhances the socio-economic fabric while setting the stage for future prospects. The completion of the Siracusa-Gela A18 Highway and the initiation of the high-speed rail line between Palermo and Catania are not mere construction projects; they are lifelines that can revitalize the Sicilian economy, enhance daily life, and strengthen the backbone of this historic region. We are at an infrastructural and economic juncture that demands action, and it’s a collective responsibility to ensure that we make choices that benefit the many, not just the few. Furthermore, by investing strategically in infrastructure that serves the immediate needs, we stimulate economic activity, foster regional integration, and ultimately, pave the way for those ambitious projects that will further define Sicily’s horizons.

As a community, let’s advocate for a strategy that invests in today for a better tomorrow. The Strait of Messina Bridge represents a remarkable vision for the future, but it should not eclipse the importance of completing projects that are crucial for the present. Let’s reimagine infrastructure with a sense of purpose and urgency that matches the passion and resilience of the Sicilian spirit.

In conclusion, as we deliberate on Sicily’s infrastructural priorities, it is crucial to reflect on what truly drives development. The Sicilian people need infrastructure that uplifts, connects, and equalizes. Let’s choose to build the foundations that will ensure Sicily’s prosperity now—and support its ambitious dreams for the future.

Together, let’s pave the way forward.

In the digital age, personal data has become one of the most valuable commodities. Companies and advertisers spend millions collecting or buying big data to inform business decisions. Across all online services, we are constantly bombarded with privacy policies, cookies, and agreements that determine how our data will be used. One study shows individuals would need to spend an estimated 244 hours to read through all of the privacy policies encountered in one year – sound familiar? We need to reevaluate the opt-out models of consent for privacy policy and catalyze a shift towards opt-in models that give the power and the right to choose how you use the internet back to users.

The standard for privacy policy in the United States utilizes an opt-out model of consent, where users are automatically included in data collection, storing, and sharing unless they actively navigate through the maze of privacy settings to opt out. This system makes you and your data vulnerable to a range of data exploitation, privacy violations, and data breaches, and fundamentally violates the principles of informed consent. This system places the burden on users to actively protect their privacy by opting out, which is often hidden beneath layers of settings and technical jargon to make it inaccessible to users. This system is intentionally designed to make it as difficult as possible for the average American to make meaningful choices about their data. 

Contrastingly, opt-in models prioritize transparency, user control, and respect for individual autonomy online. With this model, users must explicitly grant consent for specific data practices such as collection and sharing. Companies are required to obtain consent before accessing and using your personal information for analysis, advertising, or any other purposes. The EU’s GDPR has pioneered this shift to opt-in consent and has proven that a better balance between consumer protections and data collection exists.

Opt-in models also promote trust between users and providers. Companies would be encouraged to ensure their privacy policies come across in clear and understandable ways to gain informed consent. In turn, users would have the exact knowledge of how their data will be used and decide if they want to use a service. Moreover, the move towards opt-in models would foster competition and innovation among an arguably monopolized technology industry and other markets. Instead of cutting corners with exploitative data collection and targeted advertising, companies would need to demonstrate the value of their services through quality and user experience to attract consumers.

Business-minded critics argue that opt-in models could disrupt the digital advertising industry and impact businesses that depend on targeted advertising. However, the shift towards opt-in models would only facilitate personalized ads with a more user-centric approach. Requirements for companies to secure explicit user consent for personalized content creates a more ethical and sustainable foundation for digital advertising. Another market-based criticism is that opt-in models could inhibit innovation by making it more challenging for companies to utilize personal data in business growth. However, business growth and data protection are not mutually exclusive. Businesses can continue to grow by offering valuable services and can leverage ethical privacy practices to attract users.

In the digital age, it is becoming increasingly necessary to protect our privacy, ensure transparency, and empower individuals so they can make informed choices about how their data is used. Opt-in models of consent are a step towards a user-centric and innovative digital landscape that prioritizes privacy. The decisions we make today will lay the foundation for a future where privacy is a fundamental right, informed consent is the norm, and the internet is a safe space for users.