Cambridge Analytica was accused in March 2018 of using AI tools and big data to influence the results of the Brexit referendum and the US presidential election. Most objective observers probably felt the case was overblown, but it’s taken until now to be confirmed.

“From my review of the materials recovered by the investigation I have found no further evidence to change my earlier view that CA [Cambridge Analytica] was not involved in the EU referendum campaign in the UK,” wrote Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham.

Cambridge Analytica did obtain a ton of user data—but through predominantly commercial means, and of mostly US voters. Such data is available to, and has also been purchased by, other electoral campaigns for targeted advertising purposes (the Remain campaigns in the UK actually outspent their Leave counterparts by £6 million.)

“CA were purchasing significant volumes of commercially available personal data (at one estimate over 130 billion data points), in the main about millions of US voters, to combine it with the Facebook derived insight information they had obtained from an academic at Cambridge University, Dr Aleksandr Kogan, and elsewhere,” wrote Denham.

The only real scandal was Facebook’s poor protection of users which allowed third-party apps to scrape their data—for which it was fined £500,000 by the UK’s data protection watchdog.

It seems the claims Cambridge Analytica used powerful AI tools were also rather overblown, with the information commissioner saying all they found were models “built from ‘off the shelf’ analytical tools”.

The information commissioner even found evidence that Cambridge Analytica’s own staff “were concerned about some of the public statements the leadership of the company were making about their impact and influence.”

Cambridge Analytica appears to have been a victim of those unable to accept democratic results combined with its own boasting of capabilities that weren’t actually that impressive.

You can read the full report here (PDF)

(Photo by Christian Lue on Unsplash)

The post Information Commissioner clears Cambridge Analytica of influencing Brexit appeared first on AI News.

In a post on the ICO blog, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham highlights the advantages and disadvantages of facial recognition.

“I have identified FRT by law enforcement as a priority area for my office and I recently wrote to the Home Office and the NPCC setting out my concerns,” Denham wrote. “Should my concerns not be addressed, I will consider what legal action is needed to ensure the right protections are in place for the public.”

One advantage many would appreciate is the ability to speed up passport control. However, how such data is collected and used is of great concern to many.

Facial recognition is not a new technology, but advances in AI is making it more powerful than ever. In the privacy-conscious Western world, the use of facial recognition is still relatively novel. In the East, it’s long been a fairly accepted part of society.

Last month, AI News reported Chinese facial recognition provider SenseTime became the most funded AI startup in history.

SenseTime’s technology is used by the Chinese government and its ‘Viper’ system is aiming to process and analyse over 100,000 simultaneous real-time streams from traffic cameras, ATMs, and more — for tagging and keeping track of individuals.

It’s easy to see how a system like SenseTime can be used to detect criminals. In fact, last month, a suspect wanted by police was apprehended by police after facial recognition caught him among 60,000 concertgoers.

Here in the UK, tests of facial recognition for detecting criminals have been less effective.

Last week, South Wales Police announced it used NEC’s NeoFace Watch facial recognition software at the Champions League Final in Cardiff. Its success rate was just eight percent and raised 2,297 false positives.

Rather than improve efficiency, such a poor result would increase police work substantially.

“Police forces must have clear evidence to demonstrate that the use of FRT in public spaces is effective in resolving the problem that it aims to address and that no less intrusive technology or methods are available to address that problem,” wrote Denham.

The information commissioner is ‘deeply concerned’ about the lack of national-level coordination in assessing the privacy risks and a comprehensive governance framework with regards to facial recognition.

Organisations including the Civil Society, Big Brother Watch, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the U.S have expressed similar concerns about facial recognition in recent reports. In the wrong hands, it could be very dangerous.

Do you agree with facial recognition?

The post Information Commissioner targets intrusive facial recognition appeared first on AI News.