Evidence of meeting #27 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was use.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Deputy Director, American Civil Liberties Union
I'm also not aware of any centralized registry.
I will note that in the United States, the National Institute of Standards and Technology did a study on facial recognition tools a couple of years ago. It was a widely publicized study that found the racial bias inaccuracy. In that study, I believe they looked at least 99 commercial facial recognition tools that were sold by companies. That didn't even include any facial recognition tools from big companies like Apple, Amazon or Facebook.
That's just to give you a sense of the number, but I am not aware of any centralized registry.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
The next question would be for both of you.
Should there be such a registry for transparency purposes?
Ms. Bhandari, let's start with you.
Deputy Director, American Civil Liberties Union
I certainly think that is an important first step, particularly for enforcement authorities to know who they regulate, just as in other industries. If you regulate banks, usually the banks are not operating in secret so that you wouldn't know they're subject to these regulations.
As Mr. Israel mentioned, there is a movement of having data brokers register, but it wouldn't necessarily capture companies that sell facial recognition or other algorithmic tools. Requiring that kind of transparency on a product that you sell would allow for a private right of action, private enforcement of violations of laws or regulation, or for regulators to know who to be monitoring.
Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
Yes, precisely. I think that's correct. I think Ms. Bhandari is right that the database list would not capture these types of tools. Perhaps it could be a model to build on.
I would also suggest that, in the European regime, some types of more intrusive techniques require a privacy impact assessment be filed with the data protection regulator early on in the process. Something along those lines might help. It wouldn't necessarily capture small and early-onset tools or all the tools, but it might be another way of getting a window into what's developing earlier on.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Let me see if I can just get in one more question in the minute that's left to me.
In the European context, with their digital protections, or perhaps in any state or subnational organization, are you aware of whether they have a requirement for companies to declare publicly that they are employing this technology?
I'm not just talking about people who sell the service. I'm talking about companies that might use it only for their own purposes.
Deputy Director, American Civil Liberties Union
There have been some proposed laws in the United States that would require the disclosure of algorithmic tools or automated decision-making, and I think facial recognition technology would be included in that.
Some laws that we have seen enacted at the city or state level require transparency for government use. For example, if law enforcement is adopting new technology like facial recognition, that transparency is mandated so that there can be democratic community oversight. In many cases, city councils didn't know what their police departments were using and what technology they had. These laws would mandate that it be made public, and then the city councils and other democratic bodies could exercise oversight.
I've seen it in the government use context.
Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
I think that addition would be great in the Canadian context, as well. Also requiring that type of notice would be very—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
We're significantly over time. My microphone wasn't activated, but I was in the midst of wrapping things up.
Thank you very much to both of our witnesses for their testimony. We got great information today. Thank you very much for that.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.