{"id":8163,"date":"2022-10-05T09:50:25","date_gmt":"2022-10-05T13:50:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ccla.org\/?p=8163"},"modified":"2022-10-05T10:02:12","modified_gmt":"2022-10-05T14:02:12","slug":"publication-du-rapport-de-lethi-sur-la-technologie-de-reconnaissance-faciale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ccla.org\/fr\/privacy\/ethi-report-on-facial-recognition-technology-released\/","title":{"rendered":"Publication du rapport ETHI sur la technologie de reconnaissance faciale"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t
\n\t\t

Canada lacks an appropriate legal framework to regulate facial recognition technology, and without it, there is such high risk of individual and social harm that we need a moratorium on its use. CCLA made this argument in submissions to the recent study into facial recognition technology (FRT) by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI). We strongly agrees with the Committee\u2019s conclusions in their report released October 4, 2022:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Committee\u2019s study confirmed that Canada\u2019s current legislative framework does not adequately regulate FRT and AI. Without an appropriate framework, FRT and other AI tools could cause irreparable harm to some individuals.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Committee is therefore of the view that, when FRT or other AI technology is used, they must be used responsibly, within a robust legislative framework that protects Canadians\u2019 privacy rights and civil liberties. Since such a legislative framework does not exist at the time, a national pause should be imposed on the use of FRT, particularly with respect to police services.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Committee makes 19 generally strong recommendations. The highlights include recommendations prohibiting procurement of unlawfully-obtained personal information and to require public reporting when FRT or other algorithmic tools, including free trials, are acquired by government institutions. These recommendations would help prevent a future scandal like that created when the RCMP secretly used Clearview AI software, subsequently determined by a <\/span>joint investigation<\/span><\/a> of Privacy Commissioners to be illegal under Canadian law.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Other key recommendations are directed towards accountability and transparency, include creating a public AI registry of tools used by entities operating in Canada, increasing engagement of civil society stakeholders in existing AI impact assessment processes, and establishing \u201crobust policy measures within the public sector for the use of facial recognition technology which could\u201d [we would say should] \u201cinclude immediate and advance public notice and public comment, consultation with marginalized groups and independent oversight mechanisms.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To address the well-known risks of bias and discriminatory impacts of FRT systems, there are recommendations calling for the government to invest in studying the impact of artificial intelligence on different groups, and to ensure \u201cfull and transparent disclosure of racial, age or other unconscious biases that may exist in facial recognition technology used by the government, as soon as the bias is found in the context of testing scenarios or live applications of the technology, subject to national security concerns.\u201d Of course, the national security carve out is problematic, given that risks of discrimination run particularly high in contexts like border security.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There are a range of recommendations addressing the need to legislate protections including:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n