Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Just Called Out the Racial Bias in Facial Recognition Technology and She Makes a Really Important Point

C-SPAN

 Machines are often thought to be above reproach when it comes to bias of any kind. They don't have the same social hangups that encumber humans.

But is that actually true?


Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used her five minutes during a House Oversight Committee Hearing last week to call attention to biases literally programmed into certain forms of technology, especially—as Ocasio-Cortez pointed out—in facial recognition technology.

In questioning the founder of the Algorithmic Justice League, Joy Buolamwini, Ocasio-Cortez asked for information regarding the demographic that's primarily creating these algorithms, and who these algorithms are designed to recognize.

Watch below:

After Buolamwini confirmed for Ocasio-Cortez that facial recognition algorithms are less reliable at identifying women, people of color, and transgender individuals, Buolamwini went on to point out that these algorithms are primarily calculated by white cisgender men and subsequently identify them more reliably.

Ocasio-Cortez responded:

"So, we have a technology that was created and designed by one demographic that is only mostly effective on that one demographic and they're trying to sell it and impose it on the entirety of the country?"

"We have the pale male data sets being used as something universal when that's actually not the case," Buolamwini confirmed.

The use of facial recognition technology is growing rapidly, especially within law enforcement agencies like the FBI. Large tech companies are courting these agencies in a race for whose technology can be perfected first.

However, the use of facial recognition technology to identify potential criminals—unless corrected to include people of color, trans people, and women—could lead to misidentification and wrongful imprisonment of marginalized communities.

People were cheering the Congresswoman's line of questioning.

Kudos, Congresswoman.

Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Senate undertook one of the gravest American political processes on Tuesday when the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump began in earnest as House Managers and Trump's defense team debated to set the rules for the ensuing trial.

On Wednesday, the Democratic impeachment managers began their 24 allotted hours (set over the course of three days) to make their case against Trump. They've cited documents, videos, and Trump's own words to create a compelling case for the removal of the President—or at least for hearing the evidence he's repeatedly blocked from coming to light.

But are Republican Senators listening?

Keep reading...
C-SPAN

Late last year, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump on two articles:

  • Abuse of Power
  • Obstruction of Congress

Trump's allies have railed against both articles, but the obstruction of Congress charge has come under particular focus.

During its initial investigation, the House committees overseeing impeachment requested documents and witnesses from the White House, the State Department, and the Office of Management and Budget that would help get to the bottom of just what the deal was with Ukraine's foreign policy.

When they denied the House's request, the House subpoenaed the departments for the evidence. Claiming executive privilege, their subpoenas went ignored.

Keep reading...
CNN // David Corio/Redferns via Getty Images

House Impeachment Managers and President Donald Trump's defense team debated the rules for the ongoing impeachment trial in the Senate. The proceedings lasted for 13 hours and went on until around 2 o'clock in the morning.

Hours into the debate, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) responded to a rhetorical question from Trump attorney Jay Sekulow, who had asked "Why are we here?"

It led to a mic drop moment for Jeffries.

Keep reading...
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

This past December, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing where it heard from constitutional scholars and legal experts as to whether President Donald Trump's pressure on Ukraine to open politically beneficial investigations warranted impeachment.

House Democrats brought forth three witnesses who argued in favor of impeachment, and House Republicans brought one: George Washington University's public interest law chair, Jonathan Turley.

Keep reading...
PBS News Hour/YouTube

The White House Counsel is a staff appointee of the President and Vice President of the United States. Their role is to advise the President on all legal issues concerning the President and their administration.

Pat Cipollone has served as the current White House Counsel for President Donald Trump since December 2018.

Keep reading...
SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

In the current political landscape of the United States, you'd be hard-pressed to find any issue that Americans on which both sides of the ideological spectrum agree.

But it turns out that even on an issue as divisive as the impeachment of President Donald Trump, Republicans and Democrats agree on something.

Keep reading...