Live Facial Recognition Technology in the spotlight
Facial recognition technology has been a hot topic over the last few months in the UK and abroad.
In the UK, we saw 31 civil society bodies call on the Government to ban Facial Recognition cameras and accuse the police and Home Office of bypassing Parliament over its guidance. Later, the Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham published an Opinion on the use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) in public places by private companies and public organisations. She expressed her concern over the risk to people’s privacy and the potential for LFR to be used inappropriately, excessively or even recklessly.
The Opinion explains how data protection and people’s privacy must be at the heart of any decisions to deploy LFR and how the law sets a high bar to justify the use of LFR and its algorithms in places where people shop, socialise or gather.
In Australia, the privacy watchdog is warning law reform is needed to deal with the increased use of FRT in shopping centres and residential areas and is considering an overhaul of its privacy laws.
So what?
There is no doubt then that as buildings become smarter, the use of facial recognition technology will increase, and the topic will remain high on the agenda of both government and privacy campaigners. Every building that uses facial recognition technology, and even just cameras, should ensure a robust communications and data use policy that is clearly accessible to users.
Emissions data collection: pitfalls of global reporting
A recent PlaceTech article highlighted the risk of using sustainability data. Like many property firms, CBRE set itself ambitious emissions reduction targets as part of its commitment to reach net zero. As one of the world’s largest property managers, these targets included reducing the emissions from the facilities and properties it manages for occupiers and investors (Scope 3 emissions). However, its 2020 Corporate Responsibility Report stated that Scope 3 emissions had risen by over 500%.
According to the report, CBRE cited the main reason for the swing in the wrong direction was due to better data availability, coverage and quality. This was mostly from energy intensive sectors, which had been previously underestimated in the 2019 figures on which they based their targets.
So what?
This story highlights the risk of using inaccurate, or inconsistent data for reporting purposes. This principle may be applied to a wide range of use cases and it is important that you ensure that the data used fairly represents what you expect it to.
And finally…
When we think about digital risk, it’s easy to focus on the big issues that might affect your building such as cyber security or software failure. But tackling risks in bite sized chunks can often be the best approach. As we collect and use more data, poor data management is a common problem. As Chris Lees of DataClan highlighted in a recent blog, the real cost of poor data management can be substantial. He believes around 30% of all resource is expended on avoidable data related activities, whilst IBM estimate that poor quality data costs the US economy $3.1 trillion per year or 15% of GDP. Taking time to tackle essential processes such as data management are just as important as the bigger risk topics you might face.