Regulating AI-Based Remote Biometric Identification. Investigating the Public Demand for Bans, Audits, and Public Database Registrations
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13605v3
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 09:11:37 GMT
- Title: Regulating AI-Based Remote Biometric Identification. Investigating the Public Demand for Bans, Audits, and Public Database Registrations
- Authors: Kimon Kieslich, Marco Lünich,
- Abstract summary: The study focuses on the role of trust in AI as well as trust in law enforcement as potential factors that may lead to demands for regulation of AI technology.
We show that perceptions of discrimination lead to a demand for stronger regulation, while trust in AI and trust in law enforcement lead to opposite effects in terms of demand for a ban on RBI systems.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: AI is increasingly being used in the public sector, including public security. In this context, the use of AI-powered remote biometric identification (RBI) systems is a much-discussed technology. RBI systems are used to identify criminal activity in public spaces, but are criticised for inheriting biases and violating fundamental human rights. It is therefore important to ensure that such systems are developed in the public interest, which means that any technology that is deployed for public use needs to be scrutinised. While there is a consensus among business leaders, policymakers and scientists that AI must be developed in an ethical and trustworthy manner, scholars have argued that ethical guidelines do not guarantee ethical AI, but rather prevent stronger regulation of AI. As a possible counterweight, public opinion can have a decisive influence on policymakers to establish boundaries and conditions under which AI systems should be used -- if at all. However, we know little about the conditions that lead to regulatory demand for AI systems. In this study, we focus on the role of trust in AI as well as trust in law enforcement as potential factors that may lead to demands for regulation of AI technology. In addition, we explore the mediating effects of discrimination perceptions regarding RBI. We test the effects on four different use cases of RBI varying the temporal aspect (real-time vs. post hoc analysis) and purpose of use (persecution of criminals vs. safeguarding public events) in a survey among German citizens. We found that German citizens do not differentiate between the different modes of application in terms of their demand for RBI regulation. Furthermore, we show that perceptions of discrimination lead to a demand for stronger regulation, while trust in AI and trust in law enforcement lead to opposite effects in terms of demand for a ban on RBI systems.
Related papers
- Artificial intelligence, rationalization, and the limits of control in the public sector: the case of tax policy optimization [0.0]
We show how much of the criticisms directed towards AI systems spring from well known tensions at the heart of Weberian rationalization.
Our analysis shows that building a machine-like tax system that promotes social and economic equality is possible.
It also highlights that AI driven policy optimization comes at the exclusion of other competing political values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-07T11:54:14Z) - AI Procurement Checklists: Revisiting Implementation in the Age of AI Governance [18.290959557311552]
Public sector use of AI has been on the rise for the past decade, but only recently have efforts to enter it entered the cultural zeitgeist.
While simple to articulate, promoting ethical and effective roll outs of AI systems in government is a notoriously elusive task.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-23T01:45:38Z) - Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
Particip-AI is a framework to gather current and future AI use cases and their harms and benefits from non-expert public.
We gather responses from 295 demographically diverse participants.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z) - A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming [124.89885800509505]
Some researchers fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal.
We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor.
We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-07T20:55:08Z) - Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair
Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
"Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture.
This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias.
In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z) - The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage.
Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z) - Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time.
We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups.
If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z) - Quantitative study about the estimated impact of the AI Act [0.0]
We suggest a systematic approach that we applied on the initial draft of the AI Act that has been released in April 2021.
We went through several iterations of compiling the list of AI products and projects in and from Germany, which the Lernende Systeme platform lists.
It turns out that only about 30% of the AI systems considered would be regulated by the AI Act, the rest would be classified as low-risk.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-29T06:23:16Z) - On the Efficiency of Ethics as a Governing Tool for Artificial
Intelligence [0.0]
Artificial Intelligence Ethics and Safety is an emerging research field that has been gaining popularity in recent years.
Several private, public and non-governmental organizations have published guidelines proposing ethical principles for regulating the use and development of autonomous intelligent systems.
We would like to conduct a critical analysis of the current state of AI Ethics and suggest that this form of governance is not sufficient to norm the AI industry and its developers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-27T09:46:33Z) - Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them.
We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives.
We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.