Generate not only understanding but as i will ask a number of witnesses legislative fix thats may be important in this rise of technology matched against a document matches against a document that has been a living document for more than a century obviously centuries, and that is the constitution of the United States of america. Like many other leaps forward in technology, facial Recognition Technology offers our society both promise and peril. Proponents extolled the potential benefits of modernized policing, greater certainty in Law Enforcement, safer borders and ultimately a more efficient criminal Justice System. At the same time, Facial Recognition systems have clear potential for misuse, have been found to be inaccurate at identifying certain groups of people. Ial for misuse and have found to be inaccurate at identifying certain groups of people. Moreover, the technology and how it has been used in prosecution raises constitutional concerns that call into question the basic tenets of fairness and due process, underpinning all criminal prosecutions. The criminal consequences implicated by these darker elements werent closer examination by this body. Congress has found itself at a disadvantage. The information on how Law Enforcement agencies have adopted facial Recognition Technology remains underreported or nonexistent. Today, we are beginning facial Recognition Technology out of the shadows and into the light. This dialogue must start with a simple question about whether this technology is sufficiently accurate to justify its use by the police and if the risk of depriving someone of their liberty unjustly is too great. To add untested facial Recognition Technology to our policing would only serve to exacerbate the issue still plaguing urge terminal Justice System. Largescale adoption of this technology would inject further in equity into a system at a time when we should be moving to make the criminal Justice System more equitable for americans and we are working very hard to pass the George Floyd Policing act. It was passed out of this committee many months ago. There are many unknowns but we can be certain that most if not all Facial Recognition systems are less accurate for people of color and women and for the most part, we can be confident the darker the skin tone, the error the higher the error rate. Error rates have been up to 34 higher for darker skinned women than lighter skinned men. It is not just sometimes wrong, it can be wrong up to a third of the time. Additionally, a 2019 study by the national institute of standards and technology found empirical evidence that most Facial Recognition algorithms exhibit demographic differentials that can worsen their accuracy based on a persons age, gender or race. According to the study, systems vary widely in their accuracy and depending on the algorithms and types of search. America is a multicultural, multiethnic nation. This is particular important as it relates to these findings. Asian and africanamerican people were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white men. Native americans had the highest false positive rate of all ethnicities and women were more likely to be falsely identified than men. The elderly and children were likely to be misidentified then owes then those in other age groups and it plays a strong role in trying to find missing persons. Middleaged white men generally benefited from the highest accuracy rate. In spite of these flaws, facial Recognition Technology is being rolled out across the country and has proven valuable to Law Enforcement in many instances from the large to the small, Facial Recognition systems are being quietly incorporated into american policing. You have small departments in the United States that may not have the training and are using these technologies. We have heard the success stories like it being used to identify the shooter and the tragic Capital Gazette Massacre and help identify victims of Sex Trafficking by max just by maxing by matching missing persons photos. Facial Recognition Technology has been used to identify several of the insurrectionists on january 6. While we must applaud the use of new technology for the apprehension of domestic terrorist, this must be weighed against the fact that many of the system privately or government owned operate with minimal transparency, limited oversight and faulty informational security. 18,000 different police of departments across america of varying capability, it is noted that they are using technology with minimal transparency and limited oversight and questionable security. Individuals are testing this private software without the knowledge of or approval of their agencies. Many communities find Facial Recognition systems and in their neighborhood. It must involve community consideration, technological evaluation and sober legal analysis. As these trends have developed, the federal government has been largely absent. What we dont know powers what towers over what we do and there needs to be change. Little thought has been put into the widespread adoption of a technology that can materially offer a benefit to Law Enforcement. This is the issue this committee hopes to correct today and going forward. This hearing is not meant to prejudge facial Recognition Technology or its value to Law Enforcement but rather it is an important first step to proactively engage with this technology and adopt and adapt our laws accordingly. As i indicated, it is important that we also work on productive and Construction Legislation is constructive legislation as needed. I look forward to engaging with the witnesses about the benefits and pick walls inherent in facial Recognition Technology and forging a way forward toward Transparency And Accountability in its use. It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the committee, the subcommittee, the gentle man from arizona for his Opening Statement. I thank you for yielding time to me and i thank you for holding this very important hearing on facial Recognition Technology and its use by Law Enforcement. There is so much of what you just said that i can associate myself with step there are some things that i think we can work together on a bipartisan basis hopefully, all of the members of the United States congress. Facial Recognition Technology is a powerful tool when used properly. When used improperly and relied upon too heavily, it raises serious concerns and has some realworld negative consequences. Today, we will hear from a witness who was detained by the detroit Police Department. Facial Recognition Technology is not perfect and honestly its far from it. In order to be reliable, images must be captured in the most favorable conditions. Facial recognition algorithms perform poorly in the faces of women, people of color, elderly and children. I am also concerned about the potential of first and fourth admin meant corrosion. Law enforcement agencies could potentially use the system for the surveillance of individuals not involved in any suspicious activity whatsoever. Moreover, federal Law Enforcement agencies with assistance from the state and local Law Oarsman partners have access to images of an overwhelming number of otherwise lawabiding citizens. State Motor Vehicle agencies possess high quality photographs of most citizens that can be used in Facial Recognition programs and it could be per combined with public surveillance. Federal Law Enforcement agencies are also not limited to facial Recognition Technology systems they control are those controlled by other partners at the state and local level. Federal Law Enforcement can use nongovernment Facial Recognition to providers like mission solutions. Law enforcement officers with a clear view ai account can upload a photo of an unknown individual. The System Return Search results and shows the potential photos of the unknown individual as well as links to the fight to the site where the photos were obtained. The use of the technology is largely unregulated and raises numerous concerns. The government could use facial Recognition Technology to monitor or target people exercising their first amendment rights including freedom of association. Facial Recognition Technology poses privacy concerns and improper use can violate the first and fourth amendment rights. With these constitutional concerns with this technology, the gao issued a report that said not only had the Law Enforcement agencies not assessed privacy and other risks but some of them dont know which systems their agents are using. I think this is a real opportunity for us to gain some important Information And Knowledge today. I have enormous concerns that i will summarize. Technology, the technology here is problematic and inconsistent. It has not been perfected. Images of lawabiding people have been acquired in the security of the databases is an issue after weve seen with recent breaches of databases. Private companies acquiring and scraping their information and selling it to the feds, manipulation can take place. It expands the Surveillance State we have been railing against. The gao gave important concerns. Those thats a brief summary of some of these things that im concerned with. I think we can work to find common ground. If we are talking about nationalizing police forces, i dont think we will get there but if we are finding some kind of meaningful Regulation And Oversight of the implementation of facial Recognition Technology which is what the chair is alluding to, then i think we can find a lot of common ground here. With that, i would like to submit for the record a letter to the committee dated july 12, 2021 from Matthew Feeney of the cato institute. You want to finish the explanation . I also wish to submit an article from american military news from july of 2021 regarding the Capitol Police Adoption of the Army Surveillance Gear to identify americans and recognize threats. I also wish to include several articles about the alaskan couple who through facial technology that was a Rooney Us was eroneously used. Without objection, so ordered. I thank the Ranking Member of the subcommittee for his presentation and his Opening Statement and i do believe, as i indicated, we should be engaged in oversight and legislative response and i would like to find common ground with our colleagues. I think this is important in terms of Law Enforcement in new utilization thereof but also for the constitutional principles in which we all believe. Its now my pleasure to record highs the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from New York, Chairman Nadler for his Opening Statement. Thank you for convening this hearing. Facial Recognition Technology is now able to capture images and analyze it in ways that would have been impossible only a decade ago. In some cases, the technology enables the realtime surveillance and of individuals in a crowd. It has proliferated in a manner largely unchecked by congress. There is attention we must address. This technology is now a commonplace picture in our lives. On the other hand, most americans have little understanding of how the police use facial Recognition Technology to conduct surveillance of communities across the country for better or for worse. Thanks to the work of the government accountability office, we have our first glimpse into federal Law Enforcement on facial Recognition Technology. Its recent study, they found 20 of the 42 federal Law Enforcement agencies surveyed you some form of facial use some form of facial Recognition Technology. This report leaves many unanswered questions about how the technology is used, when it is used and what type of mechanisms are in place to guard against abuse or protect sensitive data. For example, from the 14 federal agencies, only one agency could provide a complete information about what systems their employees are using in the field. We have received several disturbing reports of the misapplication of facial Recognition Technology by local Police Departments. When attempting to match women and people of color. In some cases, Facial Recognition is deployed without proper consideration of due process rights. One Witness Today will testify to the miss under the circumstances and what effect it can have an individuals life. He deserved he deserves better from a Law Enforcement agencies entrusted to use a technology we all know is less accurate and applied to citizens that look like him. Facial Recognition Technology can be in important crimefighting tool. Like all such tools, we need to ensure that the adoption of this new technology does not further erode trust in Law Enforcement and the communities they serve and does not compound the unfairness of a criminal Justice System that too often impacts people of color disproportionately. The subcommittee will ask the critical question the hearing will not answer every question about the adoption of facial Recognition Technology by law oarsmen. Enforcement. My hope is that we will take another important step to balancing the needs of them of Law Enforcement agencies in the priority of keeping americans safe and crime and the concerns about this technology expressed by communities across this country. Our task is not an easy one. We want in america were every individual knows they and their family are safe from harm while their fundamental rights are protected. We want in america were Law Enforcement has the tools it needs to protect and serve but with clear guidelines and rules that prevent those rules from being abused. Understanding how to make that real in a moment where technology keeps changing and evolving will take a tremendous amount of work but this is worth doing. I thank the chairwoman for calling this hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, especially Bertram Lee who once worked in my office. Its good to see you and i look forward to your testimony. I thank all of the witnesses were taking the time to engage with us on this important topic i look forward to the testimony and i yield back the balance of my time. I thank the chairman very much for his presentation. Now its my pleasure to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from ohio, mr. Jordan for his Opening Statement. I look forward to days to Todays Hearing on facial Recognition Technology and i hope we can approach this issue in a truly bipartisan manner. Last congress, we work closely with their colleagues on this issue. We had many vigorous to braids debates, facial technology was one issue where we shared common ground. We held three by partisan hearings in the Oversight Committee on this technology. We learned many important facts about facial Recognition Technology. There are serious first amendment and fourth amendment concerns. There are also due process concerns about how Law Enforcement uses the technology. We learned that over 20 states, department of Motor Vehicles, have handed over their Drivers License dated to the. No american citizen gave their consent to have their data and images turned over, no elected official voted to allow this to happen. Every american should be troubled by this, i know i am i hope my colleagues on this committee are as well. The gao issued a new report about how federal Law Enforcement uses frt. This makes clear the federal Law Enforcement agencies have not even assessed the risk when using this technology. If they havent assess the risk, they are not taking them into consideration when the using the technology. The Gao Survey federal Law Enforcement on their use of the technology and 14 agencies that reported using the Technology Support criminal investigations also reported using systems owned by nonfederal entities. Only one agency had awareness of what nonfederal systems are used. Not only are federal Law Enforcement agencies not accepting the risk of using facial Recognition Technology, most dont know which systems their employees are using. Its difficult for a federal agent to assess using a system if they did not know which system they are using. I look forward to learning more and listening to our witnesses. I yield back. I thank the gentle man his Opening Statement stop without objection, all other Opening Statements of our members will be included in the record. Introduce todays witnesses let me thank them for their participation. This is a virtual hearing that is no less crucial and important and we thank you for participating in that manner of technology. The first Witness Gret good whena leads the geo the gao work. It includes federal Law Enforcement and oversight and training, civil liberties and civil rights, vulnerable populations, the federal Prison System in the federal judiciary. Director goodwin has a Phd And Masters degree in economics. Glad to see there is a houston connection. Professor Barry Freeman served as a Faculty Director for the Leasing Project that new York University school of Law Stuff he is a professor of law and if his an affiliated professor of politics. He has litigated and written about constitutional law, the federal courts, policing and criminal procedure for over 30 years and has produced numerous books numerous books and articles. He graduated with honors from the university of chicago and received his Law Degree from georgetown university law center, welcome. Robert williams lives in farmington hills, michigan with his wife and two young daughters. He works for a Logistics Planner in the automotive industry. He was wrongfully arrested by the detroit Police Department in 2020 when facial Recognition Technology misidentified him. He was apologize to them was grateful and we are grateful to the testimony you present today. Virgil lee is a counsel for media and technology. He works to advance the interest of multiuse communities. His portfolio includes broadband access, Surveillance Technology. Also artificial intelligence. He previously worked as Policy Council at public knowledge in the u. S. Committee for education and labor. He received his jp from howard universitys will of law. Welcome. We also have a Research Fellow for the center of Technology Policy at the heritage foundation, her Research Post focuses on big tech and policy. She was a fellow at the center for new american security and served as a senior Intelligence Analyst for a u. S. Naval command and helped create facebooks global Security And Counterterrorism program. She received her m a from Kings College london. Welcome. Professor Jennifer Lawrence served as a professor at the university of Texas School of lower she studied and writes about law and institutional design shaping the function of criminal justice institutions. She currently reports to the american Bar Association on their Standards Tax Force and is a former chair of the Capital Punishment Assessment team. She received her Undergraduate Degree in politics and her jd from columbia law school, welcome to you. Rhett coleman is the founder of the Tolman Group and previously served as a shareholder at a law firm. Previously, he also served as a u. S. Attorney for the district of utah and was selected by the Attorney General to serve as special advisor to the Attorney General on national international policy issues affecting United States attorneys and the department of justice. He also served as legal counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary committee. He received his ba in jd from brigham young university. Welcome. Dr. Cedric alexander is a Law Enforcement expert with over 40 years of experience in public safety. He has appeared on national media networks to provide comments on police net police communities and has written numerous editorials and books on the subject. Previously served as Deputy Commissioner of u. S. State Division And Chief of police in Dekalb County George and his county, georgia and his national president of the national organization of black Law Enforcement executives, powerful Law Enforcement organization. He was appointed to serve with President Obama on the Task Force on 20thcentury policing, received a ba from st. Thomas university and a doctorate from wright state university, welcome. Usually, i stand when i provide the oath but we welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them for their participation today. I will begin by swearing in our witnesses. If you would please turn on your audio and make sure i can see your face and your raise right hand why i administer the oath. Please unmute and let me see your raise right hand. Do you swear or affirm that your testimony you are about to give today to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help gods . Help you god . I do. Thank you so very much. With the record show the witnesses have answered in the affirmative, thank you very much. Each of your written statements will be introduced into the record in its entirety. I ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. There is a timer in the Zoom View that should be visible on your Screen Step Director goodwin, you may begin. Welcome. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. I am pleased to be here today to discuss several Law Enforcement view of facial Recognition Technology. Use of this technology has expanded in recent years and questions exist regarding the accuracy of the tech algae, the transparency in its usage and the protection of ribas he and civil liberties where the technology is used. Today, i will discuss the Ownership And Use of facial Recognition Technology by federal governments. Recognition technology by federal agencies that employ Law Enforcement officers. Two, the types of activities these agencies use the technology to esupport. And three, the extent that these Agencies Track Employeeyp Use O Thepo technology, especially the ownedch by nonfederal entities as well as the potential Privacy And Accuracy implications. We surveyed 42 federal agencies Law Enforcement officers. 20 of them reported that they owned a system with facial Recognition Technology ored use another entitys system. Of these 20 agencies, three owned their own system. 12 only used another entitys system. And five agencies both owned a system and used another entitys. These agencies noted that some systems can include hundreds of millions or billions of photos. Federalra agencies reported usi facial Recognition Technology to support various activities such asat criminal investigations, surveillance, and managing business operations during the covid19 pandemic. The 20 agencies that owned or used the technology, 14 reported using it to support criminal investigations. Including investigations of violent crimes, Credit Card and identity fraud, and missing persons. Looking more closely at these 14 agencies, some of them told us that they used the technology last summer to support criminal investigations related to civil unrest, riots, or protests following the killing of mr. George Floyd Inci may of 2020. In addition, a few of these agencies told us they used the technology on images fromin the u. S. Capitol attack on january 6 of this year to generate leads for criminal investigations. Of these 14 agencies, we found that 13 did not have complete, up to Date Information on what nonfederal systems areas being used by their employees. Soea agencies have not fully assessed the potential risk elated to Privacy And Address of using these symptoms. To be clear, some agencies knew that employees were using certain systems. For example, agencies may have had formal agreements with states or contracts with private companies. However many agencies had to poll their employees to answer our questions and multiple agencies initially told us they didnt use the technology and later changed their answers after talking with employees. What these 13 agencies all have in common is that they dont have a processam to track what federal systems employees are using. Although the accuracy of Facial Recognitionn technology has increased dramatically in recent years, risk still exists that searches will produce inaccurate results. Ifpl a system is not sufficient accurate, it could identify innocent people as investigative leads. The system could miss investigative leads that could otherwise have been revealed. Moreover, the technologys high error rates for certain demographic groups could result inee adverse consequences for individuals. Accordingly, wee recommended tht agencies implement a mechanism to track what nonfederal systemss with facial Recognitio Technology are used by employees to support investigative activities and assess the risk of using such systems including Privacy And Accuracyrelated risk. Facial an recognition technologies are only going to grow stronger. Chairman nadler, chair jacksonlee, Ranking Member jordan, Ranking Member biggs, and members of theon subcommitt, this concludes my remarks. Im happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you for your testimony. Im now pleased to recognize Professor Barry Friedman for fiveve minutes. Chair jacksonlee, chair nadler, Ranking Members jordan and biggs, members of the subcommittee, i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. Our mission relates directly to i am the Founding Director of the Policing Project at the newark University School of law. My mission relates directly to what youre doing today. We work in impacted communities, communities impacted by Law Enforcement. We also work closely with Law Enforcement agencies with the goal of bringing to policing democratic accountability, transparency, and equity, particularly around issues of race. I want to stress two parts of that because i think they relate directly to this hearing. First, the issue of democratic accountability. Its our position this is one of my key points that i would like to make today that these technologies should not be used without proper democratic accountability. Accordingly i commend the subcommittee for having this hearing to pursue what i think is essential legislation in this area. Second, i want to stress that we do work with all stakeholders across the ideological spectrum and i was incredibly gratified to listen to all of the members who spoke to the need and the ability to work in a bipartisan way on this issue. I believe that we can. There are strong passionate feelings about this technology, its very powerful technology, but there is a way forward on the technology and the question is how do we get there. So i want to turn to that. The approach we use at the Policing Project is one of Cost Benefit Analysis. We look at the benefits of the technology. As many of you said there are definitely benefits that can be obtained from this technology. And then we look at the costs and as many of you have indicated, there are very, very serious costs, very, very serious potential harms. There are racial harms from the disparities. There are privacy harms. There are harms of giving too much power to government as we can all see by use of this technology by totalitarian governments. There are concerns about the first amendment. Some people look at Cost Benefit Analysis and they think, okay, we weigh the cost, we weigh the benefits, we decide whether to do something or not. But thats exactly the wrong approach. The value of Costbenefit Analysis or Benefitcost Analysis is that we can find a nuanced way to regulate that can maximize the benefits and minimize or mitigate entirely the harms. And thats what i want to talk about. Ive spoken to many, many people over the last months and in fact years about this issue. There are strong views on both sides including some people who after much reason think the technology should be banned but the fact of the matter is when im talking to Law Enforcement or civil libertarians or racial justice advocates or people in the technology companies themselves even though they disagree about the use of the technology and about many things thats a wide swath of agreement about what isnt okay in the use of the technology, about what are shoddy and dangerous practices that should be regulated. And i want to just dive very quickly into some of the nuance of those practices and you have a longer enumeration of my testimony. I think its time that we stop saying things like the technology is 87 or 93 accurate, that doesnt mean anything. We should be talking about false negatives and false positives, thats what matters. But the truth of the matter is we dont know anything about the accuracy of this technology when Law Enforcement uses it and that is because Law Enforcement uses the technology in a way different than it has been tested. Law enforcement uses different probe images than it has tested. Law enforcement uses much larger databases. And as you think about it, the air raids just increase as the databases get larger. We dont even know if nist has tested the algorithms that Law Enforcement is using. A lot of people say, not to worry, there is a human in the loop. Now i would appeal to your common sense. We dont have enough science, but we have some. Humans in the loop can be a good thing or a bad thing. Humans in the loop would be a good thing if an independent individual identified the same person. Humans in the loop are problematic if all theyre doing is confirming what the algorithm told them. So again, we need testing and methods of ensuring that if theres a human in the loop, that human is actually working in a way to make sure that we eliminate concerns about accuracy and demographic, particularly racial bias. Finally i want to urge you to think very seriously about regulating the vendors themselves. Thats the touch point. Those are the folks that know how the technology works, what can be done to make it work. They could work on what are acceptable probe photos, what are the right settings to make sure we get accurate results. I have a Lot List of things the vendors could regulate but im out of time so im just going to thank you for listening to my testimony and im happy to answer questions. Thank you very much, Professor Friedman. Its now my pleasure to recognize mr. Robert williams. Welcome, mr. Williams. Again, i indicated my apologies, we are the presiders of the Law Enforcement in this nation and certainly we welcome your very important testimony. Thank you. You are recognized for five minutes. Okay. Chair nadler, chair jacksonlee, Ranking Member jordan, Ranking Member biggs, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Last not last january but january 2020, i was i got a call from my wife. And she told me that some detectives called her to tell me to turn myself in. She said they would be calling me shortly because they didnt have my phone number. They called me. I answered and said i asked them what was it about. He told me he couldnt tell me. All he knows is i need to turn myself in. I assumed it was a prank call. I told i hung up and called my wife and told her to disregard. She was irate, thinking maybe i was trying to hide something from her. I told her to call our local Police Department. She did. They said they had no warrants or anything for my arrest and to disregard the call. So i proceeded to drive home. And when i got home, there was a detroit Police Car parked on my street. And when i pulled in the driveway, he pulled in my driveway and blocked me in as if i was going to make a run for it. He pulled up, he said, are you Robert Williams . I said, yes, i am. He said, youre under arrest. I said, whoa, you cant just arrest me, what am i under arrest for . He said, dont worry about it, and proceeded to put the handcuffs on me. I told my wife and my kids who were coming out of the house at the time, dont worry about it, theyre making a mistake, ill be right back. Unfortunately i wasnt right back. I ended up spending 30 hours in jail. At the Detention Center. When i was in the car i asked again, why am i being arrested . And they said, we cant tell you that, but they showed me the warrant that said Felony Larceny on it. I said, i didnt steal anything, how did you get the warrant . He said a detective would be in to talk to me. I was at the Detention Center, an overcrowded cell. There was a lot of less desirables in there talking about things they had done and things that they got away with. And im just like, why am i here . And nobody ever came to tell me. So the next day, when i went to court, i pleaded not guilty. They took a recess. And then some detectives came and asked me some questions. When they came to ask questions, they had me sign a paper saying that i would waive my right to counsel so they could show me what was on the papers. I signed. He showed me a picture, he said first he said when was the last time you was at the store, i said a couple of years ago. He said, thats not you . I said, no, thats not me. He turns over another piece of paper. He said, so i guess thats not you either . I held that piece of paper up to my face and i said, i hope you dont think all black people look alike. He turned over another paper and said, i guess the computer got it wrong. And im like, i guess so. Am i free to go . And he was like, im sorry, were not detectives on your case so we cant let you go. I received a bond, i got out. My wife contacted the aclu. We started getting information about the case. We realized that it was a wrong Facial Recognition policy i mean, technology used. And ive been fighting for it ever since. I just dont think its right that my picture was used in some type of lineup and ive never been in trouble, right . I would just like to say thank you for the opportunity to share my testimony and i hope that congress does something about this law. And im happy to take any more questions that you might have for me. Powerful statement, mr. Williams, and youre tracking what i began with as i opened this hearing, that not only should we engage in oversight but i do think we should engage in the right kind of fix. Im very apologetic to you and your family for having to go through this. Our next witness is mr. Bertram Lee Jr. Youre recognized for five minutes. Chairwoman jacksonlee, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member jordan, Ranking Member biggs, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you, Chairwoman Jacksonlee and Chairman Nadler, for calling this hearing and shining a light on the serious and undeniable threat that facial Recognition Technology poses especially to black and brown people and other marginalized communities. We must reject policies and practices rooted in discrimination against marginalized communities and move toward respecting the human rights of all people. The Leadership Conference has spoken out against Law Enforcement use of Facial Recognition since 2016. Highlighting the inherent bias of these tools and their disparate impact on marginalized communities that are already overpoliced. Last month the Leadership Conference along with upturn and new americas open Technology Institute released a statement signed by 40 advocacy organizations that outline six of our most pressing civil rights concerns about facial Recognition Technology, including that its use exacerbates the harms that policing in communities that are already targeted by the police. Threatens individual and Community Privacy by allowing invasive and persistent tracking and targeting. Chills first Amendment Protected Activities. Violates due process rights and otherwise infringes on procedural justice. Often relies on face prints that have often been obtained without permission. And the technology itself poses a disproportionate risk for misidentification for black, asian, and indigenous people. The possibility for misidentifications poses a tremendous threat to the Wellbeing And Safety in communities. In some cases the cause of the bias lives within the database that an image is searched against. In others it is due to the historical bias built into the algorithm itself. The End Result however is the same. Black people are disproportionately represented. For example, in a comparison of match rates by country of origin, photos of people from east african countries and false positive rates 100 times higher than the baseline rate. Researchers also found some facial analysis algorithms misclassified black women nearly 35 of the time while always getting it right for white men. But even if the accuracy of facial Recognition Technology was improved, the fundamental issue remains. Facial Recognition Technology dangerously expands the Scope And Power of Law Enforcement when combined with existing networks of surveillance cameras dotting our urban and suburban landscapes, national recognition algorithms could enable governments to track the public movements, habits, and associations of all people at all times, merely with the push of a button. According to a report from the georgetown center on privacy and technology, more than 133 million american adults are included in Facial Recognition networks across the country and at least one in four state or local Police Departments can run Facial Recognition searches through their own network or the network of another agency. As facial Recognition Technology rapidly emerges in everyday police activities safeguards to ensure this technology is used fairly and responsibly are virtually nonexistent. As congress considers how our nations systems of Policing And Punishment disproportionately harm communities of color it must decelerate Law Enforcements ability to wield such powerful technology particularly when the history and recent abuses provide little reason to think it would be used responsibly. We are safer when our communities are healthy, wellresourced and thriving. Policies of mass criminalization and overpolicing are fueled by white supremacy, not a belief in justice. And tools like facial Recognition Technology are about social control, not public safety. The Leadership Conference you do members of congress to act now to protect the public from this technology specifically by implementing a Ban Or Moratorium on Law Enforcement use of Facial Recognition tools. Families and communities will continue to endure unspeakable Harm And Tragedy on our governments watch as long as we allow these policies to continue. Time is of the essence. The Leadership Conference looks forward to working closely with the subcommittee to address the serious concerns with this Technology And Work toward a new vision of justice that truly keeps communities safe. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. And as well for that insightful constitutional analysis which is extremely important. I would like to recognize ms. Kara frederick for five minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. In four years, a projected 6 billion people will have access to the internet with 80 billion devices connected to the web. This creates profound digital surveillance opportunities. And Facial Recognition is a standout capability. Some uses of Facial Recognition comprise legislate public safety imperatives. Finding the Capitol Gazette Shooter as the chairwoman mentioned. But the potential for abuse by agents of the state is also high. Risks are manifold like inaccurate algorithms and data vulnerabilities. I want to focus on three risks in people. Number one, the fbi is leading the way for Facial Recognition for domestic surveillance, in some cases through the use of private companies that scrape social media companies unbeknownst to subjects. Number two, outsourcing to private companies. The biden administration plans to use private companies with a history of reckless privacy practices are troubling. Although government entities like dhs have long used private firms to identify patterns, a renewed push to make outside expertise for domestic spying on the heels of the new white House Plan to counter domestic extremism portend concerns. It could lead to more expansive monitoring by Law Enforcement which leads to the third risk. The potential integration of Facial Recognition data with other pii through the expansion of mass surveillance. The technical capabilities are already here. Now multiple data sources can be aggregated and synchronized to allow governments to look for patterns in citizens behavior. Faster networks with lower latency require higher input to handle data flows. Machine learning and analytics that extract value from data fit together in mutually reinforcing ways combining to weave diverse data streams into a grid of total surveillance if desired. This can engender a climate of fear, Self Censorship and the chilling of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble in public places. While authoritarian countries like china are at the Bleeding Edge, the demonstrated inclination by governments to expand these powers in democratic nations renders the slope a slippery one. And we know once these powers expand, they almost never contract. The United States nearly matches china in its Surveillance Coverage with one camera for every 4. 6 people compared to chinas one per 4. 1 individuals. Municipalities are using covid as a justification for expanded surveillance as in peachtree, georgia. Combined with near historic low levels of public trust in the government to do what is right, the unfetterred deployment of these technologies will continue to strain the health of the body politic without immediate and genuine safeguards. Technology has long outpaced our efforts to govern it. To constrain abuse and bound Expansion Congress should establish a federal Data Protection Framework with appropriate standards and oversight for how u. S. User data is collected, stored, and shared by federal, state, and local entities. The initial focus of the effort should establish clear policies on data retention, categorize biometric data as sensitive data, and stymie mass surveillance. Congress should ensure that u. S. Identity management systems are secure and reliable based on proper standards and measurements and in accordance with nist guidelines. Programmers should build in Data Privacy protections in the Design Phase. Testing new methods of encryption or privacy, decentralize Date Storage or federated models of machine learning. In sum, the debate over public Safety And Privacy tradeoffs in our republic provides opportunity for us to embed technology with privacy protections from the outset and to shore up a system of checks and balances to address privacy infringements that do occur. How we use this Technology Today either draws us closer to the republic we should be or closer to the authoritarian states whose practices we profess to abhor. I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you very much for your testimony. Were now able to recognize Professor Laurin for five minutes. Chair jacksonlee, chair nadler, Ranking Member biggs, Ranking Member jordan, and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee on the subject of facial Recognition Technology. I will speak to a small but important sliver of this vast but complex topic that intersects with my own teaching on criminal science. The three bottom line points i want to leave you with are these. First, although facial Recognition Technology matches have not been held to be admissible as evidence in criminal cases, Law Enforcement use of Facial Recognition to identify suspects does form the basis for arrests, criminal investigations, and incarceration in federal and state systems. Second, while Facial Recognition has been the capacity to be highly accurate under ideal conditions, there is greatest cause for concern about accuracy when used in criminal investigations and third, the criminal Justice System is not able to root out inaccuracies in facial Recognition Technology. Courts do not currently admit testimony or other evidence of Facial Recognition matches to establish that a defendant is the perpetrator of a crime. However, evidence of Facial Recognition matches has been relied upon by courts in stages of criminal cases that are not governed by rules of admissibility, for example in bail hearings to support decisions ordering pretrial detention and in sentencing to define facts that enhance a criminals sentence. The overwhelming majority of criminal prosecution begin and end with no Witness Identification at all. Given the low evidentiary threshold, Facial Recognition matches can generate a conviction without any Courtroom Testing of the governments evidence. Moreover, even when Facial Recognition is used by Law Enforcement only to generate an initial lead, that early Facial Recognition match has the potential, given the stickiness of cognitive biases and the very real possibility of influencing subsequent identifications, as Professor Friedman indicated, the capacity to send investigators down an erroneous path that even if correct, has a tremendous consequence on an individual like mr. Williams. The fact that Facial Recognition is affecting outcomes would be of little concern if there were no reason to question its accuracy. As others have already noted today, despite significant advances, significant concerns remain about Facial Recognitions accuracy. There are at least two reasons why the criminal investigative context raises special worries. First, as has already been discussed, the fact that there is significant Variability And Accuracy among Facial Recognition vendors paired with disturbing gao findings that federal agencies rely on a wide variety of and sometimes unknown Facial Recognition systems, points to an urgent need for disclosure of and perhaps restriction on what public and private Facial Recognition systems are being used. Second, aside from Variability And Disparity and accuracy across algorithms, Law Enforcement use of Facial Recognition to identify criminal suspects raises special accuracy concerns because it is particularly likely that less than ideal images will be used in said procedures. Studies of Facial Recognition that find low error rates do so only when using cooperative, staged images. Declines in accuracy are consistently seen when using images not captured under ideal circumstances, precisely the types of images that are used in criminal investigations. Finally, none of this might give rise to a need for legislative intervention if the criminal legal system already possessed adequate means to police investigative use of Facial Recognition. It does not. Partly this is due to the fact that as long as Facial Recognition matches are used as investigative tools and not relied on as evidence in a criminal case there is little opportunity for a defendant who is identified to challenge that practice in court. Additionally, however, restrictive discovery, the sharing of Case Information between the prosecution and defense, means defendants are severely hobbled in litigating Law Enforcement use of Facial Recognition. In contrast to the regime in an increasing number of states, defendants in federal criminal cases do not have access to the governments investigative file. Indeed, defendants might not even learn that an early Facial Recognition Match Procedure was performed. Moreover, the trialbased timing of disclosure in federal criminal cases means little opportunity exists for the defense to vet the reliability of Government Evidence before entering a plea. And additionally, to Date Defense claims they are constitutionally entitled to information about Facial Recognition have gained little or no traction in courts. In sum, Facial Recognition is an alluring forensic tool with a potentially to open otherwise unavailable investigative avenues. Troublingly, the Justice System is not wellplaced to smoke out problems. Thank you for your testimony. I recognize mr. Brett tolman for five minutes. Mr. Tolman, you are recognized. Thank you. Thank you chair jacksonlee, Ranking Member biggs, and member of this subcommittee. I am executive director of a conservative organization dedicated to policies that promote public safety, individual liberty and whole communities. I have previously served as United States attorney, as a federal prosecutor, and as chief counsel for crime and terrorism for the United States Senate Judiciary committee. The first issue to address is concerning lack of transparency and basic information relating to Law Enforcement u. S. Use of facial Recognition Technology. Many of the fundamental questions that you likely want and deserve answers to are currently unanswerable. Questions, simple questions such as how many Law Enforcement entities use Facial Recognition, how often do they use it, who is in their databases and why. Beyond those federal Law Enforcement agencies one might suspect of using Facial Recognition like the fbi, there are a hot of others with less Parent Need who also use the technology, for example the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the internal revenue service. Also discomforting are the sources of the photos supporting this technology. For example, the government utilizes photos from Drivers Licenses and passports and photos harvested from photos uploaded to social media platforms. This places too much power in the hands of government and big tech, two entities not known for their light touch or responsible use of power. Walking out the door in the morning can be an exercise from skipping from one camera to another. Law enforcement can add recordings from bodyworn cameras or a smartphone in an officers pocket. There are very few instances where Law Enforcement will not have an opportunity to use facial Recognition Technology. The first temptation will be to use it by default rather than necessity. Instead of limiting the practice to serious public safety risk, officers may use and have already used the practice for run of the mill interactions and minor cases. Our founding fathers deliberately and prudently enshrined in the bill of rights prescriptions on the wanton search of americans as a necessary bulwark for freedom. It is hard to square those notions and protections with the unfetterred use of a technology that can instantly reveal a Persons Identity as well as their association and prior movements. The unrestricted use of Facial Recognition bears little difference from allowing police to collect fingerprints and dna from anyone they come across, an abuse we clearly do not and should not tolerate. Furthermore, it could be used to target certain americans. Facial recognition can instant strip away the anonymity of crowds and threaten our rights of assembly and association. Consider if it was used to identify individuals at a political Rally Or Government protest. This process lacks accountability. Right now we have little more than vague assurances that we should trust the government without oversight. I was tasked with leading the task in the senate to reauthorizetriot act. We heard similar assurances then about it not being turned against americans. None of this is to say that Law Enforcement should never have access to facial Recognition Technology. While chinas unconscionable use of it to enhance its undemocratic control of its citizenry is a warning of the cost of failure, i do not believe it is an inevitable consequence of any facial Recognition Technology by Law Enforcement. Further, it is unrealistic to expect Law Enforcement officials to permanently deny themselves a tool that is increasingly prevalent in the commercial sector and which has such powerful capacity to improve public safety. It is easy to contrive a scenario in which we would very much want Law Enforcement to have this technology, searching for a terrorist loose in our cities or seeking to identify a mass murder suspect, for example. However acknowledging there are incredible uses for facial Recognition Technology and voicing support for Law Enforcement is not the same as writing a blank check for power and then looking the other way. If nothing else, we need a reset in which Law Enforcement agencies must gain affirmative permission from relevant, democratically elected investments to use this technology prior to its use. That way transparency, accountability, and proper use guidelines can be established. I look forward to answering your questions. Mr. Tolman, we thank you for your testimony. Its now my privilege to recognize dr. Cedric alexander for five minutes. Dr. Alexander, you are recognized. Thank you, good morning, Madam Chair, and those who are Ranking Members and subcommittee members, for the opportunity to be here with you. Hello from the great state of florida, pensacola specifically. Its great being here with you. Im going to try not to be redundant because maybe some of what im going to say has already been mentioned in the time that has been allocated. But let me start by saying this. On july 9, portland, Maine Press herald reported on two newly enacted acts, laws, that make maine the first u. S. State to enact a broad ban on Government Use of facial Recognition Technology. In maine, state, county, and municipal governments will not be allowed to use any sort of frt. Law enforcement may use the technology for investigating certain serious crimes but state Law Enforcement agencies are barred from implementing their own Frt Systems. They may request frt searches from the fbi and the State Bureau of Motor Vehicles in certain cases. A year earlier, in august of 2020, the Portland City council totally banned the use of Facial Recognition by the police. Indeed, currently there are approximately 24 american cities that ban police frt use. And many other organizations have called for a nationwide ban because of evidence that false positive identification in the case of people of color exceeds the rate of whites. So far the federal government has enacted no law on how Law Enforcement may or may not use facial Recognition Technology. The benefits of Facial Recognition systems for policing are quite evident. Some have already been mentioned here. It is in fact that technology that does aid in the Detection And Prevention of crime. For example, Facial Recognition is effectively used for issuing identity documents and is usually combined with longaccepted biometric technologies such as fingerprints and iris scans. Frt Face Matching is used at border checks to compare the portrait of digitized biometric passports. And frt, as we all know, was used to identify suspects in the January 6 Violent breach of the u. S. Capitol and high definition digital photographing and videography, sometimes deployed from aerial drones, may be used increasingly to identify faces in mass events. Currently the fbi is the leading Law Enforcement agency that uses frt and it has developed technology and best practices to reduce error and protect constitutional rights. In addition, the facial identification scientific Working Group operating under the national institute of standards and Technology Organization of scientific area committees, is working to develop standards for facial Recognition Technology. Facial Recognition Technology has been useful and i believe Law Enforcement will believe to develop technically and become even more useful. Blanket bans on frt in policings are unwarranted and denied to police agencies a tool that is important to aid in public safety. But make no mistake, there are urgent constitutional issues relating to privacy, protection from unreasonable searches, due process and a presumption of innocence. Especially concerning are false positives and negative identification results. In addition, police do not always use frt correctly. For instance, on may 16, 2019, the Washington Post reported that some agencies use altered photos, forensic art sketches and even celebrity lookalikes for Facial Recognition searches. In one case the post wrote, new York Police detectives believe a suspect looked like the actor Woody Harrelson so they ran the actors inch through a search, then arrested a man the system suggested might be a match. Forgive me for being blunt, but that was pretty, pretty egregious, quite frankly. Using artificial technology to confer upon a highly substantive visual impression is neither factbased or just. But under federal law, it is not illegal, for the simple reason that no federal laws govern the use of Facial Recognition. Im going to stop here and be more than glad to answer any questions that you may have, particularly from a very practical perspective as being a former chief in two major cities in this country and a former federal Security Director for the u. S. Department of Homeland Security in dallas, texas, of 5 1 2 years, so i understand the importance of this technology but i also understand how it could be easily abused if those are not properly trained, certified in the utilization and best practices are not evident. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, and thank you to all the witnesses. We obviously have opened up in the parochial and oftenused term, nonlegal, a can of worms that we need to certainly address. And we will now be able to proceed with members questions. Im very grateful for the attendance to all of you members, both on the Minority Side and as well on the majority. We will now proceed under the Fiveminute Rule with questions. I will now begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Director goodwin, you obviously know of the report, the report of 2019, indicating that Facial Recognition algorithms tested accuracy in a real way by race, ethnicity, or country of origin as well as gender, and it differed in accuracy. What are some of the concerns related to Facial Recognition System Accuracy . Director . Thank you for that, Madam Chair. So a number of concerns have been raised in our reports around accuracy, and ill just focus on one main one. In terms of if you think about a persons face, its distinct, it typically doesnt change. If a persons face, that information is breached or hacked, that is totally different than your password being breached. You can change your password but you cannot change your face. In the report we note this particular concern. You know, the misidentification based on a facial image is of great concern. And we note that in our report. Thank you very much. Mr. Williams, you were wrongly arrested in front of your wife and daughters and detained because of Facial Recognition. Your story is stunning, particularly holding up a picture alongside of your face. Your good comment, do we all look alike, you were a suspect allegedly in a theft investigation, prosecutors dropped the charges and the detroit Police Chief apologized for sloppy detective work. Tell us what impact your Arrest And Detention have on you and your family . You are obviously a gentleman with employment, family. How did that impact you . Well, thank you. Well, the first thing, when i came home, my wife was saying how she had figured out how to get in contact with the Detention Center because they kept hanging up on her and telling her they Cant Answer any questions because they dont have any information, all they know is that im there and thats all they can tell her. And when i got home, i asked my wife what was going on, and my daughter had took pictures of family pictures of us and turned them around because she said she couldnt bear to look at me while i was in jail. And i had to go talk to a 5yearold, at the time, about a mistake that had been made by the police. And she it was hard for her to understand that sometimes they make mistakes, because you tell her as a child that the police are your friend, and if you ever get if trouble, this is who you go to, this is who is going to help. And, you know, i had to deal with that. And we thought about even taking her to a psychiatrist, because when we replayed the video from what happened, she cant stand to watch it. She gets all emotional. Its understandable. I have to go through that. I mean painful. Yes. Thank you so very much. Professor friedman, youve heard that story. My time is short, and i have one or two other countries. What are the privacy implications and risks to communities if a private company has access to details of Law Enforcement investigations . And you might add your thought about a legislative fix or thought about how we address this question. Professor friedman. Thank you, chair. That was an incredibly moving story. I have kids and i can only imagine. You know, the problem, as i think mr. Alexander pointed out, is that the use of this technology is a bit like the wild west. Theres no regulation. When theres no regulation, were going to have mistakes and were going to have breaches and were going to have all kinds of trouble. And there are uses of the technology for Law Enforcement. But we need a full set of regulations. And ive set out a bunch of them in my testimony. I think you could do a lot of this by regulating the vendors directly as a product moving interstate commerce, you could set a number of standards including that the companies themselves have to regulate and identify what are effective probe images, what are the right size of the databases, what are the thresholds to avoid false positives and false negatives, the technology is selfauditing so we know who you it was used by Law Enforcement. Theres a lot of things that can be done. Thank you very much. Dr. Alexander, what are your suggestions on how Law Enforcement authorities can reduce the phraseology that the Detroit Chief had to acknowledge, sloppy detective work, without greatly reducing investigative efforts . Dr. Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess if having been a former chief, if i had to respond in that way, that would suggest to me that i had a larger systemic issue around the way investigations are conducted and how people are interviewed. Here is the issue, though, for me. The technology is one in which we use every day. We pick up our cellphone, we use it to access calls or text messages, whatever the case may happen to be. The biggest issue here for me, and will continue to be, when you have victims such as mr. Robert williams, people who are innocently going along their way, because of a failed ability for us in policing, quite frankly, and i say we because i have been there, the inability to train people appropriately. They have to be trained. There has to be certifications. There has to be best practices. And there needs to be certification both, i believe, certainly at a State Level and a federal level that has to be ongoing, because one thing that we know currently is that we dont train enough. But when you are utilizing that type of technology that can easily infringe on someones rights, i think we have to be very careful. We also have to remember where we came from, even in Dna Technology, where there too we have seen over the years, particularly in the past, weve seen dna labs that were shut down because of Peoples Inability to carry out that professional function based on certification and accuracy. And we dont want to find ourselves using this technology, doing the same things that we have done in the past because what it will continue to do, congresswoman, is drive that proverbial wedge even further apart between good policing and communities across this country. And i dont think thats a road we want to continue to go down. Thank you so very much. My time has expired. I know that there are many other questions that i have interest in. But let me yield to the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, mr. Biggs, for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Goodwin, thank you for being here today. In your recent report you found 13 of the 14 agencies you surveyed that reported using nonfederal systems did not have complete, up to Date Information about what systems their employees were even using, is that a correct interpretation . Yes, thats correct, sir. So in fact, if i understand right, even one of the agencies you work with had to pull its employees to see whether they were using the system and what systems they were using, is that accurate too . Thats correct, congressman. One of the agencies polled, they initially told us they didnt use the technology and when they polled their employees, they found the technology had been used in over a thousand searches. Well, if Agency Leadership does not even know what systems their employees are using or whether theyre using it, how can they be sure those systems are not being misused, that the constitutional rights of american citizens are not being violated . So this speaks to the heart of the recommendations that we made, that agencies, you know, have an awareness. Its important that they have an awareness of what systems theyre using, particularly the nonfederal systems that their employees are using. Given that awareness, then they can then begin to ensure that the appropriate protections are in place related to Privacy And Accuracy. Ms. Frederick, we know federal agencies are using private searches, and theyre collecting literally billions of images. How are those images acquired . Well, it depends on the private company. A lot of these companies, Clearview Ai was mentioned earlier, they claim to scrape the internet, social media sites, things you might upload, what your grandma is still using flicker to upload, there is an Ibm Scandal there as well. So they are basically just scraping what is publicly available on the internet when people are unwittingly uploading these photos, clicking yes on public use by these private companies. Theyre not consenting to allow these images to be used by Law Enforcement but by using these contractors like Clearview Ai, like babble street has been mentioned, they are just using your regular photos from your grandma, from your family, from your sisters, from your daughters. So it is pretty much a governmentinfused wild west out there. Mr. Tolman, these systems, these private systems, lets leave out federal systems for a moment, but or Law Enforcement systems, what steps are they even taking to their systems . The reality is, theyre more interested in the dollars that are behind this technology than they are in securing civil liberties, and that will always be the case when private companies are contracting and utilizing a powerful technology. Their interest is going to be driven by their bottom line. So mr. Tolman, back to you still, these agencies like federal agencies that are using private services, is it just easier for them to contract out than to develop their own system, i assume . Yeah, the capability is, you know, hundreds of millions of photos versus what they would be able to gather themselves with limited staff and resources. So how are we going to ensure that americans are not being targeted by federal agencies using this facial Recognition Technology . What are your policy prescriptions . So there certainly is, as others have said, there is going to have to be a complete shift, meaning the legislature is going to have to enact regulations that require any agency, Government Agency, whether theyre contracting or not with big tech or other companies, are going to have to have policies that allow for the proper use, the legal use of this, ones which you all say is a legal use. I prosecuted the kidnapper of elizabeth smart. I can imagine during that you know, during that case, when i was a prosecutor, we would have clearly sought out Law Enforcements ability to use that to identify elizabeth and try to find her. Thats a far cry from just downloading all from social media what you can and then targeting others without the legal justification or the regs or policies that have been approved by congress. Mr. Lee, im going to ask you the same question. What policy prescriptions do you advocate so we can ensure americans are not being targeted by federal agencies or other Law Enforcement agencies . Ranking member biggs, thank you for the question. The Leadership Conference supports a ban or a moratorium on the use of these technologies. We support a Ban Or Moratorium because, one, these communities are already the communities where facial Recognition Technology is being used are already overpoliced and oversurveiled. Two, facial Recognition Technology is disproportionately inaccurate for black and brown communities and communities of color. And three, the community has not been involved in these processes. Congress has not engaged in legislation on these topics. Communities have not been involved in highlighting what they think policing should be, specifically within the context of facial Recognition Technology. Thank you. My time is up, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much. Im now pleased to recognize mr. Nadler, chairman of the committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Facial Recognition Technology, in your report you found that 15 agencies reported using systems owned by another federal entity and 14 reported using systems owned by state, local, tribal, territorial entities including the fbi. Can you briefly describe for us how the fbi uses state systems to expand its Facial Recognition Search Capacity . Thank you, sir, for that question. So ill Briefly Talk about how the fbi used the technology around the events of january 6. So the fbi has a Media Tip Line that im sure youre aware of. And so what they did, they asked for people to submit images to the Media Tip Line. The images that were submitted to the Tip Line they then inserted into an Frt System to try to get some potential matches. So thats one way the fbi has used the technology. And we did a report a few years ago on fbis specific use of the technology. And we had issued a number of recommendations that spoke to them complying with the privacy impact assessment, otherwise known as the pia, and the systems of Record Notice otherwise known as sorn. The fbi ultimately agreed with our recommendations and they implemented the recommendations. And so they have i think it was mr. Alexander, dr. Alexander, who mentioned that the fbi has done a number of things to ensure that the accuracy of the Frt Systems that they are using has improved. Thank you. Also, director goodwin, the report describes how agencies use nongovernmentowned systems. What are the potential security risks associated with a federal Law Enforcement agency using a nonfederal government owned or even a state or local government owned Frt System . So ill focus on the nonfederal systems. Its something we speak to in the report. As i mentioned earlier, the privacy impact assessments and the systems of Record Notice, the pia and the sorn, those are two standards that typically if a Government Agency is using their own system, they have to follow. And so the concern that we mentioned in our report is that if theyre using a nonfederal entity for facial Recognition Technology, that entity, that nonfederal entity may or may not have to comply with the recommendations and the guidelines laid out under the pia and the sorn. So thats a concern. So with the pia, that of course speaks to how the images are being used. The sorn speaks to the fact that if there is a change to the technology, that information has to be made public and available. Thank you. Professor laurin, for those who were arrested following Law Enforcement Officers Use of facial Recognition Technology to match them to a suspects photo, what protections are in place for defendants who are presumed innocent at that point to challenge the use of the fairly Recognition Technology that led to their arrest . Well, in many instances, today, its quite limited, the opportunity to do that. In fact, practically nonexistent to the extent that the practice has been for Law Enforcement agencies to use the Facial Recognition match as a lead that then is sort of corroborated through other evidence. The risk, though, is that that corroboration ends up not truly being independent corroboration. So for example in a case in florida, a Facial Recognition match was made based on an image in a store, and subsequently a Police Officer who knew that the match had been made, looked at the image himself and said, yeah, these two guys look alike. So by already knowing that the computer had assisted a Match Sort of doubled down on it, which is not an independent corroboration. What courts have said is that defendants really dont have the right to challenge the Facial Recognition match when the Government Isnt relying on it in court. But that misses the fact that that match could taint what is showing up in court. Thank you. Facial recognition systems have been found to be less effective at protecting people of color and women. As we heard from mr. Williams, he experienced this technological flaw in real time when he was misidentified despite his photo not resembling the suspect. Professor friedman and mr. Lee, can facial Recognition Technology be incorporated fairly into public safety strategies despite this inherent flaw in the algorithms . Professor friedman. Go ahead. First of all, chairman, its a pleasure to see you again, especially under these circumstances. Secondly, the Leadership Conference does not. Currently the issues of accuracy alone would say that would hold that a Ban Or Moratorium would be the most appropriate use. But in addition, these technologies are being used in communities that are already overpoliced and oversurveilled. And so there is no way to get around the Accuracy And Oversurveillance issues that come with Law Enforcement use of facial Recognition Technology. Mr. Lee . Chair, so i want to echo the Grave Concern about technologies that have these demographic differentials. Ive said in the past they ought not to be used unless that can be addressed. I actually join mr. Tolman in thinking strongly that we shouldnt be using the technologies until there is regulation. There may be ways to deal with the demographic disparities if we understand what they actually are. But we dont have the testing, so we have learning to do. And then we have to think about what it means to have a human in the loop because many people offer that up as a way to ensure that these things dont go wrong. But as mr. Williams story all too graphically demonstrates, the way we use humans in the loop dont do that. It might be possible to develop protocols and best practices to do that but we have not made that happen yet and that is why we so desperately need regulation. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask unanimous consent to place the following into the record. The statement from over 40 civil rights groups, letter from the security industry association, and individual statements from data for black lives, electronic frontier foundation, and the project on government oversight. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you very much. Mr. Chabot, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to lead off by thanking our Ranking Member, mr. Jordan, for allowing me to go in front of him. I have a Noon Speech that im supposed to give in my district, its going to take me a while to get there, so i really do appreciate him switching spots with me. In addition to being a senior member of this, the judiciary committee, for quite a few years, i also serve on the foreign Affairs Committee and im the Ranking Member and past chair of the asia and pacific subcommittee. And in that capacity, we, both republicans and democrats on the committee, have been very closely watching, observing, monitoring what the prc and the chinese communist party is up to there. And the threat that they pose not only to americans but to their own citizens. And its wellknown, as was mentioned earlier, i think in the statement of one or two of the witnesses, that the chinese communist party used a vast civilian Surveillance Network to track nearly every movement of every single person there. And there is 1. 4 billion people who theyre tracking. So its a pretty extensive effort that theyve undertaken. For example, they force their citizens to download apps that monitor them. They track social media posts to look for what they consider to be negative content. They stop people at random to check their devices for apps deemed to be dangerous to the state. And they use facial Recognition Technology, technology similar to what were discussing here today, to pick individuals up that theyre looking for in crowds. All of this is you know, its in order to build a socalled great firewall between china and the rest of the world, so they can keep their people under control and to gather personal data on their citizens which could be used to flag and potentially torment the people of china, individuals they believe are going to be unhelpful to the regime. So i would like to ask ms. Frederick and mr. Tolman, would you care to comment on the assessment you see relative to china, their use of Facial Recognition, other technologies to monitor their citizens and how the ccp is using facial Recognition Technology to oppress individuals and certainly various groups, the uighur community comes to mind, because theyve obviously been in the news, not nearly enough of late, when you consider that a million people are in their gulags. Are there any lessons that we should learn from this . And im not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that our government has anything like this in mind, but i would like to hear from those two, if we could. Certainly, thank you for the question. Ill begin, if you dont mind, mr. Tolman. So this is we should say yes, we have a system in the United States here that matters, sufficient rule of law protections, openness, engaged citizenry, that act as guardrails for now against the use of technology for political ends that are anywhere near like china. But it is important to look to them, as i said before, theyre the Bleeding Edge of using these technologies for internal control and internal stability. They provide a path for ethnic targeting where 1. 5 million uighurs are imprisoned in camps often through the use of these Facial Recognition systems. Its not just Facial Recognition alone. The ability to integrate seemingly disparate data lights, in china they use the joint operations platform. They take all of this data, they fuse it. They pick up sim cards, all sorts of biometrics, eye scans, all the digital exhaust that were constantly emitting, that people even in these regions are constantly emitting, they put them all together and they use this information, they use new technology, artificial intelligence, this is one of the first places they started using it, for political identification of dissidents, of uighur minorities. What i see coming down the Bike Pike is phenotyping. China is already doing this, using an Individuals Dna to predict what their faces will look like. They are experimenting with Voice Recognition technologies. And the idea is to combine all of this into this digital penopticon and using it for control. They have the technology to do so. They visited this on hong kong, as weve seen the diminishing the freedoms there. How does the Democracy Die . In full view of us. And china is using technology to enact it. We know russia is doing the same thing when it comes to pronavalny protests in january of this year. All of these things are something to keep in mind. And as Paul Moser from the New York times said, which i think is something that i would leave you with, is what china is trying to do is totalize control. They are trying to link digital reality with physical reality. And that chasm that used to exist is growing closer and closer together. China wants them to be completely interconnected. We have to guard against that in america. Thank you. Madam chair, my time has expired, perhaps mr. Tolman could respond in writing. Thank you for yielding back. I now recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. Bass, for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me thank the Ranking Member and our witnesses for being with us today. I wanted to know if the witnesses, and anyone can speak, could distinguish between using Facial Recognition to investigate versus Facial Recognition for arrests. And is it more productive to use it that way versus all of the complications for arrest. Also, you know, its very wellknown, and its been said by numerous panelists and members, of the challenges of Facial Recognition with people of color. But im not sure, unless i missed it, if anybody said, does it work better if its white men. How does it perform . Mr. Alexander, would you like to go . Well, ill try to respond, i think, to the first part of your question, whether the technology should be utilized with the idea of making an arrest based on the identification itself or can it be used as an investigative tool. When i think about it as an investigative tool, if that persons image happened to be a match or similar match and were working with zero leads in a case, it may be proved to be of some value, right . The thing we have to be very careful of, and i think someone mentioned it earlier and articulated it far better than i make sure that to approach that individually already with in mind that they are the exact person we are looking for. Do you follow what im saying . . I think we have to be very careful with the. But ideally to be perfectly honest, i was here to years ago under the leadership of another hearing the late congressman Elijah Cummings had the same conversations. There was a woman there who was a Professor And Researcher at and i. T. Spoke very eloquently around these issues and was able to provide some insight into the depth of this technology and how it does not work to the advantage of people of color. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and i think there are those on this panel who can talk further about this were in the case of white males there was least likely opportunity if misidentification, but certainly for those of color and men it tends to be more problematic. He said least likely, meaning that its more accurate with white men . Yes, its more accurate with white men. Maybe someone else could respond to that. I dont know mr. Friedman or mr. Goodman. What about that in terms of the accuracy and also its use in terms as an investigative tool . And the George Floyd Policing act, we said there should not be federal resources in Facial Recognition. Do you have your Hand Racer . I was just going to say about the question that it was supposed to be used for an investigative tool at that point they came and arrested me and didnt even tell me anything. I dont even live in Detroit And Detroit police came to my house and basically carded me off. I dont really have a lot to say about that. But what i am saying is that the way it is used they are not doing any due diligence at all. Like the chief said, it was shoddy investigative work done actually, excuse me mr. Williams, to me you are an example of what i wasnt saying you ask the question. Right. They used it for your arrest. I think that is its clear that that is problematic, but i was using it for him to investigate it not in realtime for an arrest. Mr. Friedman, do you have anything you want to say in last few seconds . Sure. I think there are things that this body could deregulatory lee and there are things that could learn, and try to get used to learn. One of the problems we have is that this is not tested the things that Law Enforcement is using. The kind of testing that actually reflects what is happening, that Law Enforcement is, instead of a set of abstract possibilities for the accuracy and bias. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Ranking member im not gonna take your time but i im just moved to say it appears as if im reasonable Search And Seizure under the fourth amendment. I will not take up your time, but im delighted to recognize mr. Jordan for the next five. Minutes thank you Madam Chair. Let me get legault to mr. Coleman. How often does it happen often do we get the wrong person . When mr. Williams told his compelling story of how they were just wrong and he was arrested and detained for i think he said 30 hours. The recent story of the couple in alaska who are not in the capital january 6th, but had a door kicked in, they were put in handcuffs, they are at and gunpoint at one Point Journey four hour interrogation. And it is all based on Facial Recognition. So how often do we get the wrong person . One time is too many, but some estimated says manys 30 , i, believe it could be more. I believe it is higher than that. Ive represented two individuals one of whom i am fairly certain, we dont know about the ones who are not publicized, the ones who are coming forward. I have a client who was accused of going inside the capitol. She was not in the capital. I believe it was facial Recognition Technology that put him in Law Enforcements investigation. We certainly had to work backwards to show that he was not. I think its more often than we know because its not being reported. Mr. Li, do you know is there mr. Pullman said 30 . We know its disproportionate on african americans. To think its a higher number than that . 30 the of the time the technology gets the wrong person . We dont know thank you for the question mr. Jordan. These weapons black Trans Borisy and lack of oversight. In cases like mr. Williams that we do know, those are terrifying, but what about the cases that we dont know about right now . So we do need more transparency and more oversight especially with facial Recognition Technology in its use by Law Enforcement. Thank you, im gonna yield to the Ranking Member, but im concerned in a general sense the Surveillance State and the fundamental liberty and fundamental rights, but when you add on top of that that it is wrong so often. To me this is why if we cant come together in a bipartisan fashion as i know we have been trying for a couple of years, and we cant do that and put restrictions on this, particularly when you have all these agencies using the technology. They dont even know whats the technology is theyre using, theyre just a host of problems here. I appreciate Chairman Lee having this hearing and im gonna yield the remaining two minutes to the Ranking Member mr. Dicks. Thank you for yielding. My question this is for you miss frederik. Social distance with current technology what prevents federal agencies or state and local government from using Facial Recognition, not just use it for identification but to trap Movement And Behavior of lawabiding citizens . I fear thats whats coming down the pike. Right now, there are specifically transparency measures, and lukewarm substructures on these uses. It was to talk very well about those a great starting point, but at this point there are no hard constraints on the expansion for these cameras. The public sift safety remit. That is huge, it could encompass all sorts of things. Emma and certainly people are taking advantage of that to interpret public Safety Safety as they wish. So unless they are required to submit those trends very transparency reports it did not exist in a very rigorous fashion, then i fear many official entities will be allowed to interpret the use of Facial Recognition interpret the use of digital surveillance in any way they can. I will say quickly, when i was at this is the problem with private companies being used by federal and it is. You want to ship it, you deploy this technology as fast as you can and solve problems so miss frederik, thank you francois. I need to ask one more question i want to ask Professor Lauren real quickly. She had her hand raised with regard to the question on Investigation Versus Arrest and what has come to my mind is this notion of tainted photo lineups, tainted tainted identification, being used in investigation as a predicate for making an arrest. Did you want to elaborate down on Professor Lauren . Thank you so much for the Opportunity Mr. Ranking member. I will say just a little bit more. To say i do think that it is possible in theory to think about a distinction in the use of the technology as an investigative tool versus forming the basis for an arrest, or put differently Facial Recognition match by itself forming probable cause to arrest. But i think from a regulatory standpoint, one needs to take great care in thinking about whats structures need to be put into place to create a meaningful distinction between those two things. For example, there are a number of agencies that say Facial Recognition itself cannot be the basis for probable cause. But there are very few if any structures around one further investigation is required to build and independent case. Are there other procedures and so people were doing a lineup dont know that Facial Recognition originally matched the individual . If not, thats not a very meaningful independent check. The last thing i will, say theres an important intersection here between facial Recognition Technology and what we already know about the validity of eyeWitness Identification, which in over 75 of known dna exonerations, there were now known to be wrong i identifications that occurred. Thats an investigative tool that itself is already quite front and using as an eye corroborating fragile face civil identification, that should give cause for concern. So im meeting full check on the investigative use of Facial Recognition is important to consider. My time has long expired, thank you. Thank you very much. It is an issue that warrants a lot of involvement and we thank our members and im delighted enough to recognize the gentlewoman from florida was a fellow floridians on the panel for five minutes. Miss spendings . Let me say good morning to all of you, thank you Madam Chair and Ranking Member for this very important discussion. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. But it is good to have a fellow floridian on the panel the former Police Executive as i am, i am always interested in new technologies that can help keep the public safe, key help keep Law Enforcement safe and improve the delivery of police service. And we know that we have work to do at all those areas. It was a decade ago that we were testing body cameras at the orlando Police Department and while we were not really sure of the road ahead, i do know that the public was very excited about that possibility. Certainly it is one of the recommendations that is coming to the forefront now, and we should always seek technologies it will enable us to better do our job. Dr. Alexander, you said the technology has long outpaced the chance to govern it. I think that is such a powerful statement because not only does it appear that the use of Facial Recognition outpaced our ability to govern it, we see that with other technologies as well. But dr. Alexander, you talked about some best practices. Until we can find ourselves at a point or we can through regulation and other things, could you just expound a little bit on some of those best practices . I thank you very much congresswoman demings. I think its very important for us to recognize the technology does move along very quickly, and if we think about the development and implementation of technology over the last 10 15, 20 years, or even the last five years, it outpaces often us as human beings. We are not prepared oftentimes for the unintended consequences that comes with the technology that we are all utilizing every day in our lives. So yes we have to develop best practices, and what are some of those best practices . I think we can really only clearly define once we make some determination of real legitimacy of this facial Recognition Technology, it can be innocently is with our cellphones just opened it up because when it comes to the constitutional right regardless of where they are in neighborhoods that becomes more problematic. Can we use it as an investigative tool . You know as well as i congresswomen that oftentimes we might go embark on an investigation where we have zero leads. But maybe you have a piece of this Facial Recognition that suggest that the cedric alexander, what we cant do is what happens to mr. Williams. We can look, well lets listen to the background of cedric a alexander little further. Lets explore some other things that we did not maybe think about even at its suspect or a person of interest. But the problem even life, there, as ive already stated, is that sometimes we can identify an individual that maybe a likely person of interest or suspect, but if our own implicit bias is get in the way, it will overwhelm the entire investigation and it gets us down this dark path of where now we are really doing injury and hurt to people. But heres the bigger thing i would mention to all of you in congress, is that as we go through this place in america right now around police reform, one thing we do not need is a piece of technology that is going to continue to drive a separation between police and community. People want good police. We all want great technology. The idea around this technology really, you know, is great. Its well founded. But it has to become more accurate. It has to have the type of legitimacy, trust in this technology, that is needed in order for the american people to feel like its not going to infringe upon the rights and hurt people in any type of way. I sit on a national innocence project port, and i understand the importance of Dna Technology and how its used to free individuals, quite frankly, who should never have been incarcerated, like mr. Williams. But we have to do a better job in advancing this technology, but understanding that sometimes the technology moves along faster than we do as human beings, because we still have a lot of catching up to do around many of the social challenges we have in our great nation. So i hope in some kind of small way that it dresses your question, congressman. It did. Thank you so much you can. Thank you to all of our witnesses. And with that i yield back, Madam Chair. It is time, thank you very much. Its expired. And we now recognize mr. Olmert for five minutes. Thank you Madam Chairman. And ive got to say this really warms my heart to hear witnesses from both sides having so much good info input. Its my observation during the bush years that the department of justice was able to convince republicans, many of them, a majority of them, now we dont need any reform right now, and really pushed back and convinced republicans that we are in charge to back off of some reforms we should have made, and i notice resistance alike that im. Im sure a lot of pressure from the Obama Administration on democrats that were in charge not to do some reform that was needed. So when i hear the testimony and the questions and hear this in such a great bipartisan way, something that is so serious, it really does warm my heart. Some great comments and great questions. Dr. Alexander, i note your careful to make sure that you note that this technology can be helpful and then since we are thinking back about our fbi, you think that technology on recording statements instead of the fbi having their agents not record statements, audio or video, but just right now, their version of what a witness, do you think the technology has gone too fast for the fbi, that maybe we could get them to start recording with audio at least, maybe video, and i am being sarcastic, but that is an area of concern for me. If you combine Facial Recognition, mistakes, with the Fbis Ability only record, right down only their version of what the witness says, you combine flaws like that, and then we are looking at some serious problems at the federal level. Local, im sure, your Law Enforcement that, which you oversaw, recorded statements, so that wouldnt be such a problem. But can you see regulations, dr. Alexander, that would help us be able to confine Facial Recognition just to the investigating stage, so that and as a former judge, you know, sometimes Law Enforcement will come in, and theyll go to the judge, this is, you know, an affidavit, but hey, we did also, if you didnt [inaudible] i dont want to hear it. T swear to it, i do notbut thata real sworn evidence to on sworn Evidence Isnt always distinguished by some judges. You see some regulations we could utilize to actually get some teeth into that . Well, and thank you for that question, congressman gohmert. I think first of all, let me say i think the fbi has a tendency, has the ability, has the training, and also has the fidelity of a federal Law Enforcement agency that is well trusted. And everything that they have pursued, particularly around technology, they really kind of stood up on technology if you go back 100 years with them, in terms of the work that they get back then, and they do today. Forensically. But they do have great capability of being able to access that type of technology and use it in a way that is standardized, [inaudible] best practices, one in which they really are the leaders around the utilization. Because they use this technology to go after foreign actors who want to do harm to this country, or to utilize this even in domestic. Dr. Alexander, my time is short but [inaudible] i am very concerned about some of the abuses. And when we, we see that [inaudible] support meets in secret, and then it doesnt seem to be any checks. And like i say, as a former judge, im very offended that some judges have not been outraged, like mr. Williams treatment and others, i think that is a problem, when the judiciary is not upset enough to actually take action and bring Law Enforcement into line. But let me ask mr. Tolman, do you see a way to get specific regulations that would discern between investigation and actually going to court and getting a warrant and picking up somebody like mr. Williams . Youre, i think you could implement things such as not allowing for the facial Recognition Technology to launch an investigation, that they would have to have an independent basis to launch the investigation, and then ultimately if it went to trial, you could utilize facial Recognition Technology as additional evidence. But you cant have it the other way around. Because then you have concerns about whether the evidence that is cooperating at the facial Recognition Technology is simply influenced by the subjectivity of the investigators. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you very much, and chairman really, i really appreciate this hearing. Thank you so very much, mr. Gohmert. We are more and more finding some common ground, it should be some good opportunity for us to move forward. Im delighted to recognize now the gentlelady from georgia for five minutes. Miss black man, recognized. Thank you very much chairwoman. I appreciate it. Thank you to each and every one of you that is here today. And thank you so much for all of your timely resource and information, your expertise. And i want to go ahead and discuss, start a really quick question. Dr. Alexander, looking at how we might regulate facial Recognition Technology, how can we seek to build trust between Law Enforcement and the communities that they serve, especially communities of color . Well fundamentally, thats where a lot of the issue lies, congresswoman mcbath, because currently in this environment, that we are in, this is not new, its just more exacerbated over the last several years. There are certainly a great deal of mistrust between police and community, and anytime that you are already dealing with that in the current context of where we are right now in this country, but as we continue to introduce new technology and ways of doing things that are questionable, such as Facial Recognition, if we dont do it right, and we end up with continued victims like mr. Williams, then we continue to create that separation where legitimacy around policing continues to be questioned, and this is the fight that i find myself fighting every day in the roles that i play now, is really trying to build those relationships, but it certainly does have its challenges associated with it. I play now, is really right becs not going to help the Cause And Building relationships apps. Because if we dont have that collaboration to policing a community and i dont care where it is, will continue to find ourselves and will be continue to be addressed. Thank you so much and stay in the fight. Professor lauren, your testimony said the rules of discovery, the sharing of Case Information between the prosecution and the defense are restrictive. So prosecutors dont actually have to mention what Facial Recognition technologies they might have used to investigate and our courts dont get much of an opportunity to advance the law by sorting it what is acceptable and unacceptable uses of this technology. Could different kind of discovery rules help with this problem . Thank you so much for the question congresswoman. I think the short answer is yes. And at the risk of going a little bit into the weeds, one thing to understand about criminal discovery in the United States, just like criminal law generally in the United States, is there is tremendous diversity of systems. We have at least 51 criminal Justice Systems in the United States, given the states in the federal government. You look across those systems to federal criminal discoveries are really among the most restrictive. Rule 16 is very limited in terms of what information the government is required to disclose to the defense. There are a number of states that particularly in recent years, have gone in the opposite direction New York. But my own state of texas in passing the maidan michael morn act, and an open file discovery system, and under that system, the defense typically would have access to essentially the entirety of the non privileged investigative file. They would know the steps that the investigators took, regardless of whether the prosecutions going to present that evidence, and regardless of whether a court deemed to be expendable exculpatory or favorable to the defense. So i think some of the points of mr. Tom was just making regarding regulations being in place. And particularly in thinking about the federal system, thinking about Opening Discovery more with regard to facial Recognition Technology is really an essential part of achieving transparency and really vetting the reliable out of this and criminal education. Thank you, in just a few moments i have left. Professor friedman, should congress regulate private and get a government own systems . I guess i know that the report shows that as others have noted today that Facial Recognition systems owned by the government as well as those owned by private companies and used by government actors arent always regulated. Does the ownership of these systems play a role in how theyre used . Thank you for the question. I think its essential that there should be regulationsy, and the likeliest wait for congress to regulate is through vendors, the manufacturers of the product that are being distributed. So i think its essential. You do want to regulate the use of those technologies by Law Enforcement agencies. Theres been a lot of discussion about trust in communities and Law Enforcement. Youre not gonna see that until there is a serious set of regulations about how the technology is used. I could say more, but the time is expired. Thank you so much each of you and i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. Thank you so very much. I now recognize miss tiffany for five minutes. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Mr. Frederik, i just want to frame my question with the background on the biden administration on is reported in the last couple of days to be coming out they are going to enlist the wireless phone carriers to vet Peoples Text messages, and i mention that because some of my constituents believe we are short on lead to the communist parties in China System where theyve created their social credit system. Are my constituents right to be concerned about where we are at here in the United States . I will say and somebody worked in the Intelligence Community for almost a decade, i think your constituents are right to be concerned that were these technologies are going. What i think is particularly disconcerting is what you mentioned, estimates content potentially being parsed. Email content has been mentioned as the next frontier. Podcast have been mentioned as having a portion of unfettered conversations. These are bastians that show up our culture of free speech. I definitely think it is of concern to see were authoritarian governments have taken us. We do have guardrails but it is especially important for conservatives and those expressing their views to be vigilant and to watch where this Technology Net naturally goes and guard against it. And i think were all advocating again for certain guards in some respect. Dr. Alexander, you mentioned the state of maine, particularly portland, maine and we also heard from mr. Li commenting that communities have not been involved. Isnt there a role for City Councils, state governments, those governments that are at the local level to get involved with this as well. Because theyre responsible for their police forces in all instances correct . Yuck i think humiliated. Yes, thank you congressman. Yes, you are absolutely right because there at the local level as were all starts on. A local elected official, mayors, city managers, county managers, whatever the case may be, they certainly do need to have a voice in this. What you want to always make sure of is that your police agencies are operating at the highest level of training and certifications. We dont have that across the country, and thats why you find some communities backing off from this technology until more concrete findings are done. Thank you very much for that. I just think about local elected officials. Ive many constituents in wisconsin, who work in the twin cities in minneapolis, and we saw a real failure on the part of the mayor of minneapolis, and the City Council, in addressing the riots that overwhelmed the City Of minneapolis last year. A lot of it is because they didnt take control of their Police Department. There were a few bad cops not pleased apartment and they needed to take care of them. They did not do it. This is the same thing. They need to address this technology. Its not just the city monopolists, other cities across the state and country. They have the obligation to oversee their Police Departments initiative that including in regards to using this type of technology. Final thing i would say before many yield to mr. Bates. This is an example of the limits of technology. I think about simple things with children. They get better Reading Retention when they read off paper versus often electronic format, and i think the police the same way. You cannot replace boots on the ground with good investigative work with technology involved in all instances. I yield. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My question for you mr. Tone and is this. U. S. Capitol police have been given Army Surveillance Equipment to start americans. We have a report from a group called Surveillance Technology oversight project, they said that represents an expansion of Police Power and surveillance. Since i just have a few seconds, and im gonna ask the question. They point out the expansive nature of the Surveillance State. How do you see this role of actually using military surveillance and giving Equipment And Technology to Law Enforcement, how does that expanded Surveillance State . In this particular instance, its of Grave Concern because right now the Capitol Police are exempt from the freedom of information act. Not only would it be difficult under rules of discovery you would also not be able to get transparency, so it creates a very powerful Surveillance State in an agency that is probably on a custom and doesnt have the history of being surveillance of american citizens. Its a recipe for disaster. Thank you, my time is expired mister tiffany. Yes and all your back but just one final thing i think we should put in the mix here what is happening in these text messages what theyre talking about and the phone companies, and the wireless carriers to intercept as a mass messages. And that should not be done by the administration by the biden administration and we should [inaudible] this issue as we go forward. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Well, thank you very much, and now that these issues reach beyond administrations and deal with important questions of this committee is now bringing forward. Thank you so very much. Its now my pleasure to yield to the gentle lady from pennsylvania. Miss dean, for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for convening this hearing on innovative technology and its appropriate use and regulation. Under the law. I also think all of our testifiers and Advocates Today for being [inaudible] things that you are able to share with us. Mr. Li, id like to start with you. How companies like clear view claims that through their database, it can instantaneously identify people with, quote, unprecedented accuracy, and yet mr. Williams s story is known unique. Such technology has resulted, as we know, in a taste to falls rests in michigan, and one in new jersey. Organizations such as aclu have expressed concern around the wrist that clearviews technology may have on documenting undocumented immigrants, people of color, survivors though domestic violence and members of the communities. Can you share with us some of the dangers of this [inaudible] Phase Print and its matthews. Absolutely and thank you for the question, congresswoman. The issue, there are a number of civil rights and civil liberties concerns with private access to Law Enforcement investigations and also with Law Enforcements ability to purchase private data. There is little to no transparency, as we said before. I think a fundamental issue that we need to talk about with respect to this hearing is that these technologies are not accurate. And i think we are having a conversation is they are. But there are significant era raids across the spectrum, particularly for marginalized and multi marginalized communities. And so with little oversight, with little guidance, with no Community Input and no meaningful ways to engage in checks and balances, any conversation around the use of faceoff Recognition Technology within the criminal legal process is something that Leadership Conference and many advocacy Organizations Pork again push back against all ardently. We should be thinking about the way in which to envision Law Enforcement and Community Engagement with Law Enforcement that does not require surveillance as nor constant surveillance nor near constant over policing and that is something that we need to push forward on. Thank you so much for that. So transparency, recognition that this is not a foolproof technology and the error rate, theres an awful lot more we need to learn. Mr. Williams, of course, we are all moved by your story. Your young daughter your young daughters watched as you were arrested for a crime you did not commit. How did your Arrest And Detainment affect your children, affect your family, affect your community . Well, thank you for the question. So, it mainly affected my older daughter, my other daughter was only two, so she didnt know what was going on. She cried, too. She was crying, because her sister was crying. But like i said earlier, i was trying to tell the story in a really short time. We thought about taking her to see a psychiatrist because every time she sees the story on tv, it makes her very emotional, and she starts crying, telling us to turn the tv off. And im like, im not going to jail every time you see it on tv. Its just theyre reporting a story again. And i wrote something down, somebody else had asked a question. But the police actually did investigate it and put all those eyeballs on the case because nobody said these two guys dont look alike, right . I dont know how that human what goes into it, but [inaudible]. The explanation for that . No, nobody told me. And then we basically had, well i can say forced them, but we asked them over and over and over again for a proper explanation or a week to say it was some type of i dont know what the word for it is, but they didnt seem like they were sorry. E. Like, they didnt want to be apologetic about it. They were like, it happens. We made a mistake, you know, that doesnt do anything for me, because all i did was come home from work and got arrested. And then this other stuff, like i didnt eat dinner that night. They had already served food at the present. So i got over it, i got to go sit in a cell with no food and no drinking water, and, you know, it was terrible for somebody that i wasnt ready for it. I have to say, mr. Williams, thank you for sharing that with us. I asked about your children, but we have to realize what impact it has had on you. A long term impact on you. As you were picked up after work and arrested and detained, so inhumanely. And so incorrectly. So, thank you Madam Chair, i see my time has [inaudible] i didnt need to cut you off. I dont know if you all can hear this, ive got a smaller speech impediment at this moment, but last year, i also suffered some strokes and they are looking into that to see what actually caused the strokes. And i have no idea at this point. All i can i have one doctor say it could have been attributed to stress or whatnot, and really, i dont know if he has a way to prove it, i dont know. But i did have strokes last year after. God bless, you and please. Thank you. I pray for you or start off. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you, the ladys time has expired. And mr. Williamss story should inspire us and all others for finding a bipartisan bipartisan pathway forward. Let me now yield five minutes to mr. Gassy. I recognize mr. Massie for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this very important hearing on a very important topic. Before i jump in two Facial Recognition, i want to talk about name recognition. Imagine a system, a computerized system that instead of basing the adjudication of your civil rights on the distance between your eyes, the shape of your nose, or where your ears are in relation to your cheekbones, its based on the spelling of your first and last name and birthday, and whether you might share a scene with somebody who has been convicted of a felony, or maybe in present today. Well as well, such a system exists, and there is no Judge And Jury involved. Its called the Knicks Background Check system. And, you know, the troubling thing about Facial Recognition as it exists today is that there may be racial disparities there, but we know there are racial disparities in the next is the Background Check system. Thats the system you need to go through in order to purchase a foreign. And my friend john white, who worked at the doj recently, that has found evidence that this system, by a factor of three to one, produces false denials of four black males compared to white males because they may share a similar name to somebody who is incarcerated within their ethnic group. So its good when the good work that the gao does, you all the great work. I served on the committee, we worked on the official recognition topic. Its a gao released a report where they said there were 1200 thousand denials based on the instant Background Check and only 11 federal prosecutors. Ostensibly 100,000 people committed a crime by trying to buy a firearm when they were ineligible. What we know from that is actually that they didnt commit a crime that there were a lot of false positives. I got a commitment from Fbi Director Wray to look into this issue whether there are racial describes built into the instant Background Check system. He has, is not very technologically advanced at all. He said your work on it. What i hope this comes across your desk and if you have an opportunity that you might look into it. This is something that you are part of the j. A. Or would examine. Thank you congressman. And actually that was my report i, worked on that report. Excellent. [inaudible] report. So we are happy to have the conversation with you about objectional work we can do in that area. Thank you for that report. Race, information on 44 73, so we can just take another level and that would be as deep and thorough as the report that you did already be very helpful i think. I noticed that the beginning of this recent report an Facial Recognition started, or your testimony we served 42 federal agencies with Law Enforcement employees for internal Law Enforcement and i said, whoa whoa whoa, stop right there . That to me is troubling. Maybe this is something to match democrats and republicans can get together on . We have too many organizations, if the department of organization has a police force, that maybe we have too many police forces at the federal level. Moving on, i wanted to ask one of our professors here, maybe Professor Lauren, about material. Ex ball exculpatory evidence that is produced in the prosecution may not want to share with the defense. You mentioned that the way to get around some of the typical safeguards is a say we just use it to identify the suspect were not using for a conviction. Can you talk about how that is problematic and how Defense Attorneys can get braiding material from Facial Recognition companies . Thank you for the question. In terms of the last piece that you mention, is called getting braided material from companies, there may be instances, assuming a world we dont just live in yet, where Facial Recognition matches are actually introduced in as evidence in criminal cases. In that case, a defense would want to interrogate whats inside the black box that generated those facts . One of the complicating features here is the proprietary nature of many of these technologies. So we havent seen this yet so much a Facial Recognition Context And Dna Novel Analysis low Copy Dna Access to a sore source codes and companies pro trade secrets squashed defensive one of the features here in a criminal layered on top of that disagreement over this scope of brady and deciding with the. I see my time is expired. I just want to say Hope Congress will weigh in on this instead of like the brady trend im in courts to does seem a problem with Facial Recognition yet but across all the names. I yield back. I now different perspective, gentleman from rhode island, mr. Cicilline. Youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you for calling that and share this very important hearing and thank the witnesses for your pain compelling testimony. I want to begin with you mr. Williams. Im just wondering, first of all thank you for being here to talk about these issues in terms of public policy and its good to be reminded that this actually impacts peoples lives in a very profound way. My question to you is did it seem like the plea said even can bother to conduct an actual investigation, or are they relying solely on with the computer told him in connection with your arrest . Thank you for the question. So they did provide information i didnt find any this until after we went to court, but they had a lineup of i guess six guys and none of us looked alike. Who put this together . I wasnt there but somebody picked me and said this is the guy right here. Do you see him in this lineup . I look nothing like the other guys. I was actually ten years older than all the other guys in the pictures, and they didnt is my current Drivers License photo, these one from six years ago. Thank you. Are there specific privacy concerns related to data breaches of Facial Recognition systems that are more concerning than breaches of other systems used by the federal government . Yes congressman, thank you for that question. Yes there are. As i mentioned earlier, the faces permanent, its distinctive. If that information is breached, a lot more problematic and concerning that if your passport is breached. You can change your password, be for the most part you cant change your face. There are privacy concerns about what the threat looks like when that technology and that information is breached. With Facial Recognition systems are varying levels of accuracy but we know theyre especially ineffective in identifying people accurately from communities of color and women. Is there any training that might help Law Enforcement to overcome these inadequacies . Or are they so embedded in the system that we should ban Facial Recognition outright . Thank you for the question congressman. I think we need to think about one, context of policing that doesnt involve surveillance, and it doesnt involve overly surveilling rate marginal communities. I would also highlight that one of the things that we need to think about is that if the technology is not surveilling, or if the technology is not working to the same communities that is just trying to help, is this Technology Worth using in the first place . But something that we need to think about, particularly within the context of civil rights concerns. Because again, mr. Williams was wrongfully arrested, wrongfully detained for a crime that he did not commit based off of a lineup used right facial Recognition Technology there was not authorized by the local government, was not known by mr. Williams hits himself, was not understood and under circumstances by the people are using it and had varying levels of accuracy across the board that were not given to mr. Williams at the time or to the Law Enforcement. One more question. What mr. Masters was just asking about mr. Lisa. Can we simply require that facial Recognition Technology was used to identify them in any part of the profits process. In addition to that, we could require the prosecutors disclose any sort of their things we could do to cause more transparent and hopefully challenge the evidence. I i agree there are certainly other items that could be added to that, to the extent that the Systems Record Confidence levels. That is something that seems next necessary to but the it able to get to that black box know whats driving the results. Does that five questions round intellectual properties is an important issue to get. Because the charm recognizes, part of this is facilitated by the Monopoly Power of these Logs Technology platforms. The fact that there unregulated, fact theyre collecting enormous amounts of surveillance, and the danger this presents real challenges, and it requires all of us to regulate how private companies can provide this technology to Law Enforcement, and a larger question on how to rein in big tech. I yield back thank you Madam Chair. Time is expired. I thank you very much. We have other members who get to ask their questions, so we will certainly move so that you can be included. Atlantic and now recognizing mr. Fitzgerald for five minutes. Mr. Fitzgerald . Thank you Madam Chair, thank you very much. Fascinating stuff this morning. I just wanted to move maybe in the direction of a little bit away from the Law Enforcement aspect to just the private sector and some of the members touched on this morning. As we see iphones that use face recognition, anytime youre going through the airport now you see the clear system which is allowing access for individuals to eat in airports on a regular basis. Some employers now that are using this in relationship to their employees under the auspices of security. So theres a lot of different things happening in the private sector. The question i get for miss frederick and mr. Coleman, can you address some of the constitutional and privacy concerns of private sector use, particularly related to the difference between using facial Recognition Technology for verification purposes rather than flat out identification . All mr. Coleman okay ill start here. I think generally from a level its not outsourcing of surveillance that portends i think more concrete potential violations of the fourth amendment. Im not a lawyer, but when i see the surveillance basically outsourcing its job to private companies that dont follow under the united States Constitution thats what starts to worry me as a citizen. Somebody whos been behind these powerful technologies that are employed at a commercial level by the Surveillance Stage overseas, i think its that outsourcing to private companies that we need to think about when it comes to the constitution. Because some reports indicate that is especially made to search the constitutional protections. Let mr. Tone give his broader expertise in this. I think that last point is where i wanted to go which is oftentimes these thirdparty party Providers Isnt and run around the protections. Weve already seen that when court is already indicated the baltimore Police Department, by the way the fourth amendment in its use of facial Recognition Technology that that would be one Pressure Point to push you towards utilization of a thirdparty provider. One in which you have somewhat lower standards with utilizing the evidence. We dont know the nature of some of those partnerships. We dont know if thats the biggest problem right here, is the lack of transparency and information. We dont know what it is. Sometimes even the questions we need to ask to find out how pervasive the question is a relationship is. Thank you very much, great answers. The other question that i would have for both of you would be. Theres been some discussion about a full ban, what we are seeing across the nations some municipalities, through ordinance have been trying to progressing addressing this issue as it emerges either as part of something that is under their control. Many times it is, a municipal Court System. And they are just moving forward. City councils, and even City Council boards are moving forward. Is that practical at this point . You can probably hear in my voice, it doesnt seem like it is to me at this point . I would just quickly say i understand the calls for a ban, but that is what makes this difficult, there are circumstances in which this powerful technology may be the only thing that may save a victim or save a town from some horrific crime or from a terrorist attack, for example, so getting this right in how we authorize Law Enforcement to use it is right now the most important job, i think, that this congress has. Ms. Frederick i prefer to think of it more as a tactical pause, take the time to get it right. So i. T. That there are measures with which we could do so. A lawsuit are being fought in the court. Illinois has filed a lawsuit against the chicago police. There are other mechanisms, as well as municipalities, that can take the time to get it right. Rep. Fitzgerald thank you. I thank the gentleman. Im pleased to recognize the gentleman from california. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Im super excited that you called this hearing. My office and i have been work and Facial Recognition for over two years. The reason it has taken so long is the chairwoman has aptly stated that it is a can of worms. It can be very complicated. We are working on legislation that is essentially complete now, it basically requires a warrant for most cases for the use of facial Recognition Technology, it sets auditing standards and requires recording. It prohibits the technology for most first Amendment Protected Activities and in number of other provisions. We will circulate that legislation to the members of this committee for your review and comment. So, thank you for this hearing. My first question goes to Professor Laurin. As we know from the hearing, the facial technology implicates the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. But i want to talk about the equal Protection Clause, because there is a disparity in accuracy in terms of the color of your skin. Would there also be an equal Protection Violation if we had governments deploy this annoying that knowing that people are being treated differently in terms of surveillance . Mr. Laurin i think that in answering the question i want to sort of distinguish between constitutional doctrine, as it stands, and maybe a more intuitive sense of what is rightfully understood to be constitutionally problematic. I think the challenge with using the equal Protection Clause and doctrine around it, to get at these issues of bias in Facial Recognition, is existing supreme Court Doctrine requires that essentially discriminatory intent be proved in order for State Action to be deemed a violation of the equal Protection Clause. And that presents a hurdle when one is working with evidence of disparate impact, right . There is this evidentiary Area Gap often and getting from the state realizes there is a disparity to the state wants to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. That has been the difficulty in using the courts to get at these problems of disparity. That does not mean it would not be understandably appropriate for congress to say, we see a problem in these disparities and want to legislate to require that the disparities in themselves be sufficient basis for limiting these technologies, etc. One needs that they can about what the hook would be further that in terms of section ive, or the five, or the commerce clause. But the existing doctrine presents a challenge because of the requirement of intent. Thank you. Professor friedman, first of all let me step back and say that i agree with what dr. Alexander and mr. Tolman said, that we cannot just ban this technology. You look at human history, it is nearly impossible to ban technology, but we can regulate it. Because of so many different iterations and possible uses and situations for facial Recognition Technology, what do you think about imposing a Warrant Requirement that can take into account different factors before deciding whether in any specific case we would use a facial Recognition Technology . Thank you for the question. I want to make a comment about the ban versus a strategic cause point. I think everybody is recognizing we have the cart in front of the horse, that is the problem, the regulation is the only shot at getting the horse back out in front. Warrant requirements are useful in some circumstances, not others. It depends on the Use Case. For example, if the Use Case is identification, which is what most agencies are doing right now, they take a photo and compare it to a database, a Warrant Requirement makes sense, but only because there is a reasonable belief is you have a photo of some but he suspected of a crime permitted under the statute. I would only allow this for very serious crimes. Thats a use of a warrant that makes sense, but the warrant cannot tell you that a particular individual did the crime, it is just the technology. I yield back. I think we have present with us the gentleman from utah, mr. Burgess, he was recognized for five minutes. Rep. Burgess thank you, thank you for holding this important Hearing Today concerning Facial Recognition. It demands a bipartisan solution and i look order to working with colleagues to address their concerns. I want to thank mr. Williams today, we agree on the unfairness of what you and your family had to endure. Thank you for doing your best so that no other american has to experience what you are going through. And i want to give a special welcome to my fellow utah resident, mr. Tolman, who has been a strong advocate of criminal justice reform. And towards the end of the questioning, im finding that the upside is most of the questions have been answered, so i will yield my time back to the Ranking Member, but before i do and want to highlight what was said previously, the bipartisan concern im seeing as we go through the topic. And i also want to point out, as we look at solving the increase of crime that we see everywhere, that we cannot rely on technology. It is a tool to support human relationships, and human relationships should be based on respect. We cannot continue to Demean And Disrespect the good men and women policing our communities and expect technology to make up for it. I hope this committee will address the concerns of facial Recognition Technology, lets take the same passion to bring back the respect for are Law Enforcement officers, the men and women, the same respect i had for them that i experienced as a child. We will have more confidence in them once we have that accomplished. I will yield back my remaining time to mr. Biggs. Rep. Biggs a couple of quick points. This has been a very enlightening hearing. We have not really addressed my opinion enough, the question on a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thats been shattered by the data scraping that goes on by private companies. I hope that we can expand our investigation into that, because i do not think that the question has been settled through the courts yet, either. If it has, i have not seen it, but we certainly need to get to that. I also want to comment on the legislation from mr. Lieu. I look forward to reading it and i appreciate your efforts on it, and i hope we can integrate the work done in the previous iteration of the Ogr Committee with the chairman cummings. So i look forward to seeing that and hope you can get it to us soon, mr. Lieu. And i want to ask mr. Tolman this question because it goes to the heart of what we are talking about i mean, as said, this is a can of worms when you open it up. When we start bringing together other technologies, we have discussed this with sms, and we use this from mere identification, which in itself is a problem, to potentially track movement, this notion of sciencefiction type precrime, stopping precrime whats your take on that in a brief way, that we are on a spectrum that will keep moving to trying to stop people from committing crimes before a crime is committed by using this technology and others combined . I share the concern. When we have seen Law Enforcement given additional technology, their first instinct is to utilize it because they have a sincere desire to work on behalf of our communities and the victims of crime. However, they are often the last ones to ask the question, should we utilize this technology. That has to be the discussion of members of the legislature that identifies this. We are already seeing that speech in you know, social distancing under covid, in areas where we have not been are now areas where we are focusing Law Enforcement technology in action. Because of that we are on a slippery slope and i would share your concern. Rep. Biggs i hate to cut you off, but i want to finish where we started with the chair and the testimony from mr. Williams. So, let me find it. Mr. Williams, in your written testimony you said, i do not want anyone to walk away thinking that if only they technology was made more accurate the problems would be solved. I think the issues we have discussed are not just issues with the accuracy of the technology, i think we are talking about a total invasion of privacy, which is absolutely unacceptable, which at some point will give too much power to the state. And we have seen it already in your case, mr. Williams, and in others. I am looking forward to working with the chair, and also mr. Lieu, and others who have a sincere interest in resolving this issue. Thank you. I yield back. You are absolutely right, we have a sincere interest in resolving this issue and if there are layers of issues i think that we can respond to as a committee in a bipartisan manner. And thinking of bipartisanship, im delighted to yield to the gentleman from california, a former sheriff, for five minutes. Thank you for holding this important hearing, and i want to thank all of the Witness Today for their testimony. Mr. Williams, i want to say that hearing your story, being in a cell for 30 hours and not knowing why or what you were accused of is alarming and tragic at many levels. As you think about the today, when you give your fingerprints, you give permission to have them taken. When you go for a scan, you say, here are my prints. When you give your dna, you give it with permission, knowing that somebody is going to do a Dna Scan on you. But when it comes to Facial Recognition, no consensus is necessary. In fact, most people do not even know that their information is being collected by somebody, a private entity out there. It was mentioned that 133 million americans let me repeat that, 133 million americans have their Facial Recognition data in a database somewhere in this country. And i presume most, if not all, give that without consent or even knowing that that data was taken from them. So, Professor Laurin and Professor Friedman, i have a question we discussed the constitution, our rights, but are there any regulations, laws that govern to limit in any way possible a private Entitys Ability to collect Facial Recognition data . As a taxpayer or citizen, do i have to accept the fact a private firm has my Facial Recognition data to sell for use as they wish . Professor friedman if i may . Go ahead. Professor friedman i want to appreciate the question at a couple levels, because it is important. It is easy to fall into the language of constitutional rights, and those are critically important, but the interpretation of the constitution often does not touch the things we are talking about, in part because the technology is rushing ahead of the courts. You could not be more correct that there is an urgent need for legislation and regulation, as to private companies and Law Enforcement agencies. To the private companies, i do not know of any congressional law that deals with this. Some states have stepped in like illinois. For the most part, there is not. And i think the need for legislation is essential. Professor laurin i can only echo what the professor said, he speaks my mind. I think there is a tendency, actually, to sort of overly prioritized the constitutional stuff and to miss the fact that actually the constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, in terms of protections. And often the constitutional protection is lower it design lower by design because the courts say there are details for congress to figure out and it is really not our institutional place. Let me repeat my question. As a citizen, will i have to accept the fact that right now a private third party has my Facial Recognition information and they can do whatever they want to do with it, sell the information to whomever they want to sell it to without repercussions, without any regulation, without violating any kind of a law . Is that the state of the Country Today . Professor laurin the best answer i can give you, i do think that there are at least some Data Privacy regimes, statutory regimes, that will limit summative days. Would limit some activities. But in the main there is little regulation currently, and certainly the constitution has virtually nothing to say about private, nonState Action. At that is why congressional action is so important. So i am left here with a very unsettling feeling that i essentially have no remedy for somebody using my facial data recognition information. For whatever they want to do with it. You can create one. Congress has the power. You can change that state of affairs, if you chose to. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ran out of time. I yield back. The individual ran out of time. Were also running out of time. This is such an important issue and i am grateful for all of my members. And i listened to, as i yield for a moment, i listened to Professor Friedman over and over about regulation, and that is what we are having this hearing for, because we are working on legislation, and i look forward to working with mr. Biggs, but also with our colleagues who are likewise working on legislation to address the question about regulation or a construct that needs to address this question. So, thank you all very much. It is my pleasure to yield it to the Vice Chair of this subcommittee from missouri, the Congresswoman Bush for five minutes. Rep. Bush thank you for convening the hearing, madame chairman. We have spent significant time addressing the brazen and broad scope of power of our Law Enforcement agencies, from the fbi to prosecutorial agencies under the department of justice, and time and time again we are met with Law Enforcement practices that not only under mine our civil liberties, but our basic principles of human dignity and security. 28 members of congress were falsely matched in a Mug Shot database. This was members of congress, public officials. Imagine what it is like for everyday people across the country. What we know of this technology is the darker your skin tone, the more likely you will be falsely identified. I recall the response to the tear gas. It was during that time we realized we needed to where bandanas because of the likely chance of facial Recognition Technology being used. The gao found a 14 agencies use facial Recognition Technology. Yes or no, was not used by federal lawenforcement agencies during the protests on the Torture And Murder of George Floyd . Yes. What collateral consequences are there of protesters being identified by these technologies . We raised concerns about inaccuracies. The concern is people would be misidentified by the technology, and that could have adverse consequences. A persons face could be out there and used in a number of ways. Our focus was to look at the lay of the land for how lawenforcement was using the technology. Thank you. In 2016, it was reported police used Facial Recognition to surveil crowds during the freddie gray protests without a warrant. Is there anything to protect those identities while engaging in the first amendment . Thank you for the question. This would be in our mind a violation of the first amendment, but also there are serious Privacy End civil liberties concerns with the technology that we saw not only with the George Floyd protests but also with lapd, using bring ring cameras to surveil black Lives Matter protesters. We have serious concerns. There are serious civil rights and civil liberties concerns about the tracking of protesters. Especially in these circumstances and especially when the technology is not well used or very accurate. Mr. Lee, how does the use of the facial Recognition Technology how does that persuade the opinion of Law Enforcement and high tech . Theres a tenuous relationship between communities that are over policed and over surveilled by Law Enforcement. We have seen that time and time again. Congress needs to keep that in mind when regulating Facial Recognition technologies. These are tools used by Law Enforcement to disproportionately target black and brown people across the nation. We need to keep that in mind. The civil liberties of those people in mind, as we think of what the next steps are. We have asked for a Ban Or Moratorium. We think it kills protests and speech. It miss identifies, and it does not work. Thank you so much, mr. Lee. There are local solutions that are being [inaudible] [no audio] ms. Bush . Are we able to get ms. Bush connected . I think we may have lost Congresswoman Bush. Thank you very much, congresswoman, for those very insightful points that you have raised. I have been impressed by the direction of our questions, the depth of our questions, and certainly the importance of our witnesses. I have questions im going to utilize at this time, but im happy to yield. You have been rewarded with time. I am happy to yield to you before i make my final inquiries, that i hope will be important to the record of this hearing and proceeding. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know you will be surprised to hear this. Even though i have many more questions and comments about this, i appreciate those who have participated. But im going to limit my comments right there. Again, thank the members, the witnesses, and yourself. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. Thank you very much. And thank you to the witnesses. I am going to proceed with some questions that i think that i did not proceed with. As i do so, i want to make sure that i thank all of the witnesses again. You will probably hear me thank the witness has more than once. I would like to submit into the record, then i will begin some questions that i think a very are very important. I want to submit into the record the Geo Report that i believe was entitled facial Recognition Technology, federal Law Enforcement agencies should have better awareness of systems used by employees. I think that is shocking, and i think that is also indicative of what i think dr. Alexander made mention of, and terms of the numbers of Law Enforcement and the utilization of this tool without training. I will, mr. Lee, come to you for a broad question on civil rights. But let me ask dr. Alexander, 18,000 Police Departments, one of the reasons why we had a push in the George Floyd reform and Policing Act to find regular order that will help police not diminish police, how do you respond to the idea that and also, to my members, i believe we should have a Followup Hearing with some of our federal Law Enforcement representatives cited by this excellent report put forth. That may be in a classified manner. We will be presenting that in the future. Dr. Alexander, to note that it was determined through the federal system that employees were using this system without their hierarchy knowing, what do you think that means for the 18,000 Police Departments, if this technology comes into their possession, and how that relates to your point about Police Community relationships, but also victims and i will call a victim, and that is mr. Williams and his family, the victim, that he can be made whole. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, there are 18,000 Police Departments in this country, and often times, we are finding more and more, weve got 18,000 different ways things are being done. And how they are being responded to, how they are being disciplined, how they are being managed, how they are being trained, etc. When you have one organization, and all it takes is just one, quite frankly, the american public see policing the same does it make it right . No, but thats the reality of it. If i do something horrible, well have to take that hit, too. To your question, it becomes important to recognize that training will have to be regulated at a federal level and there has to be some federal standard. The same way we do with fingerprints, with dna, with other forensic methods, that have proven to be of value in the lawenforcement and public safety community. Because the whole idea about this particular piece of technology is that it is very convoluted, and it is very complicated, and there are going to be cases that are going to go before the courts that we have not even thought about yet, as it relates to this technology, still yet to be examined. I just think, congresswoman, that due diligence would be given to these local agencies across this country, if they have an opportunity to be well trained, if there is standardization for utilization of this technology, if the ongoing certification there be practices held to the highest standards of science. In addition to that, i think it becomes important as well, too, that the public understands what facial Recognition Technology is. Because weve talked about it a lot within the context of policing and within congress, but a lot of people in our communities across this country do not understand exactly what it means. And when they do here about the hear about the cases, they hear about the cases that are often associated with negatives, mr. William. You dont have to answer, im going to make this based upon your response minimally, Police Departments need to be aware of when the technology is in their possession, and the individuals given the authority of using it, i would like to place that on the record, because the title of the report said that our federal agencies should have better awareness of these being used by employees. That is shocking and amazing to me. I think that can be parlayed out into the field with the other 18,000 police apartments. But thank you for your answer. I indicated my concern has been the unreasonable Search And Seizure. I think this was raised by one of our members. I would like a succinct answer from both of you. I dont think we are without tools. We have the ability to look at the federal criminal procedure as we do federal procedure, but as we do civil procedure. In any event, as a former u. S. Attorney, in cases where an Investigation Result in prosecution, should prosecutors be required to inform the defendant that facial Recognition Technology was used to identify them in any part of the progress . Of the process . It is investigative, and should positive matches be required to be produced, as that investigation goes forward . If it ultimately comes into court. I know one of our members mentioned the brady difference. The brady defense. How should we respond to that . Thank you, chairwoman. My bottom Line View is it is absolutely right, the observation that with respect to federal criminal procedure, there are some very direct interventions that congress can make. While the scope of rule 16 frankly is always sort of a fraught discussion, i think there are important limited interventions that can be made in terms of requiring access to Facial Recognition. The fact of the search, to alternative matches, to information on confidence levels. As i said, i think to the extent possible, it is essential the defense has access to the algorithms, to what is inside the black box to be able to evaluate the reliability of the technology. And that can all be a matter of statutory change, without having to worry about the Court Sorting through whether it encompasses that. The professor is absolutely correct. I agree with everything she just articulated. I would add to that, unlike a lineup, where a prosecutor is required to hand over alternative individuals who might been placed in the lineup, and the rationale for the lineup that was utilized, facial Recognition Technology requires the prosecutor and should require the prosecutor to turn over more if the intention is to give the Defense Counsel all that it needs to assess the Reliability And Admissibility of such evidence. We are in a new ballgame with this technology. It will require more to be given from a prosecutor to a Defense Attorney under the strictures of constitutional protection. One additional note, it is essential that timing be addressed. Because if Defense Counsel is only able to access this on the eve of trial, it does no good in terms of evaluating whether a guilty plea is inappropriate, no good in admissibility of evidence. Early discovery is important as well. Early discovery and early knowledge, is that my understanding . Thank you so very much. Let me quickly Professor Friedman, i want to clarify, when you said regulation, and what framework are you speaking . I think what is important here is comprehensive regulation. That does two general things, regulate the technology, and the other is, theres a lot we need to learn. One of the Things Congress can do immediately to actually test this technology under operational conditions, how lawenforcement is using it. Because there are very serious concerns about accuracy and bias, particularly racial bias. Particularly racial bias. We get numbers reported, but those numbers are no reflection to how lawenforcement is actually using the technology and what little we know from this suggests those error rates may be quite high. Theres a list of things that i think congress should studied. There are a list of immediate safeguards we could put in place. For example, best practice protocols about what it means to have a human in the loop to verify what the algorithm does. Thank you very much. Im going to finish with mr. Lee. You have been keen on the providers or the tech entities that control this technology. From your perspective, what would be a regulation, in that entity, in that arena . I work for the heritage foundation. We are about limited government. We do not really support regulation or robust regulation when it comes to private entities. My solution would be we have to encourage these companies, the leaders in these companies to institute those privacy by design mechanisms. Make sure in the Design Phase of creating an algorithm you are doing it with privacy protections. We should have methods of encryption, which are getting more powerful and better. Decentralized models of storage. Machine learning. If u. S. Congress can sort of impress upon these companies that they need to build their Data Privacy protection, i think that is a good start point, short of actual regulation on something. In the spirit of my Ranking Member, you know this is a bipartisan hearing, we wanted to make sure we welcome your boys, as well. Your thoughts as well. Those will be very helpful. Let me have mr. Williams, then mr. Lee, you have the last word. Mr. Williams, i think you have heard from all of us, we are appalled at what happened to you. We are stunned. But we know that there are good intentions, i will be introducing an article where this technology was used. We also heard from dr. Alexander, that the policing out there, working to do positive things. You fell into a very bad trap. What do you want to leave us with, not as a victim of yourself, but as a victim of this technology that should not have happened . I started out by apologizing to you and your family, and will be eagerly watching your case, possibly pursued by the aclu, if i am correct. What do you want us to know as you end your testimony here . You are on mute. Thank you. First of all, i want to say thank you for inviting me to come and tell my story. And i hope that going forward, we can figure out a way to like they said, to regulate it. It is already being used, so we need to get it fixed so that it works in a way that it works properly. Because in the current state, it is wrong. They get it wrong even when they get it right. I dont if that makes sense. Like, you dont really have a [indiscernible] nobody is ever signed up to say, hey, they used my picture from my id. Like i said earlier, they didnt even use my current Drivers License, they used one previous, from what i mightve looked younger at that point. I dont know. I guess all your information is in the system, so it is available to use. I was asked a few times about my daughter and how she took it. I do not know what the lasting effect is. At this point, she is upset every time we look at it or see it. I dont know. Im just i hate to say im thankful there was a Felony Larceny. But what if the crime was capital murder, or something like that . And then they came to my house and arrested me . I dont know if i wouldve gotten a bond to get out and be free to even talk to you at this point. Because the Court System is so is so backed up, they probably wouldnt even have gotten to me yet and i would still be locked up for something i did not do. Right . I mean, i kind of cringe to think about it like that, because i did not get to say anything. I didnt have any rights read to me or anything. They showed up asking my name, and i asked for a warrant. They didnt bring one. I kind of resisted arrest, but i was in my driveway. I was like, what are you all doing . He was like, are you mr. Williams . You are under arrest. I was like, for what . He was like, i cant tell you. You cannot tell me what i am under arrest for, but i am under arrest. He took me immediately down to the Detention Center and i got fingerprinted and Mug Shotted right then and there. I asked him if my fingerprints were clear, i would be out. But that didnt mean anything. My fingerprints went in, so what . Now they have a Mug Shot to add to it. It was so backwards, if that makes sense. I just feel like i am a regular. I thought i knew the law. And i was wrong. Hopefully we get some change. Mr. Williams, i would just simply say you are seeking justice. And you deserve it, you really do. Mr. Lee, you represent the family of those who have been fighting these issues are dealing with the criminal Justice System. Having listened to mr. Williams, i know the position of the moratorium, but just, if you would, end us on the enormity of the problem, if we were to have Facial Recognition used randomly in this massive entity of 18,000 Police Departments. What can happen to a person who was lined up like mr. Williams . I am shocked that you cant get a reason why you are being arrested. I thought you were entitled to that. But they used Facial Recognition. It didnt look like him when they put the picture up to him. So how is that undermining of civil rights and civil liberties in this country, if used as it was used with mr. Williams . Madam chair, yes, i think there is a broader context of policing we must keep in mind that is especially instructive in talking about the case of mr. Williams, but also why many in the Leadership Congress in this Leadership Conference in this Coalition Support a ban moratorium. We cant separate the tools from the context of the american policing system. We have evidence of that system over decades, centuries, of how black bodies and disproportionately black people are treated within the criminal legal Justice System. We cant separate those tools. If you add the history of that criminal legal system to a tool known in the best of conditions biased against black people, so many members of the community we need to protect because of their protected status, and the history of harm that has been done on to their bodies throughout centuries, then we have to really have a real conversation about whether this technology actually works the way that we think it does. And it doesnt. That proves time and time again whether we are talking about the research or the Aclu Use of the facial Recognition Technology used to identify members of congress who are public figures. Communities that are over policed and over surveilled. And it is least likely to work for those communities. And the communities not involved in the process. Theres no public hearing about widespread use. Congress has not been asked or has legislated on these topics. This is compounded by the opaCity Of policing practices in general. And Law Enforcement agencies. We still do not know how Law Enforcement is using this technology or the full extent of it writ large. Community engagement is not a checkbox. It is a continuous conversation. And no one knows. There are secret hearings, classified briefings, but the public does not know the full extent of facial Recognition Technology. And probably the use of it by Law Enforcement writ large. And broadly the use of it by Law Enforcement writ large. We will continue to consistently call for a Moratorium Ban on these technologies and we would be more than happy to work with this Committee And Congress to imagine a solution and imagine a world of policing that puts the civil rights and civil liberties of marginalized communities first, not last. And not using these same communities as basically test cases when these technologies do not work. Ok. Thank you so very much. Thank you so very much. Thank you to each of the witnesses for their profound testimony. And thank you to my members, or the members of this committee, and Ranking Member, thank you for joining me. On, i believe, a hearing that will be very constructive going forward, as evidenced by the questions and responses and the expert witnesses we had today. This concludes Todays Hearing. I would like to submit into the record the problem of bias in Facial Recognition. May 1, 2020. Washington Post Article how Facial Recognition helped capture members of the capital mob, dated april 2, 2021. The Washington Post responding to the study. I want those articles submitted into the record. I thank our witnesses for their attendance and participation. We thank all those who have helped prepare the hearing. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the reco