{
"authors": [
"Charlotte Stanton",
"Steve Feldstein"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "democracy",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "DCG",
"programs": [
"Democracy, Conflict, and Governance",
"Technology and International Affairs"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Security",
"Technology"
]
}
Source: Getty
Even in democracies like the United States, government use of facial recognition technology, in its current form, corrodes civil rights and civil liberties because its errors disproportionately impact vulnerable communities.
Source: Tech Dirt
We welcome the city of San Francisco’s decision to ban the use of AI-enabled facial recognition technology by police and other municipal agencies. Facial recognition technology is prone to misidentification and biased targeting, particularly among members of vulnerable communities. It also opens the door to intrusive surveillance -- beyond the scope of existing technology. Until the technology improves to avoid such harms, its use should be heavily restricted. And even with improvements, the public must confront tough questions about how closely governments should monitor their behavior.
Regrettably, global trends are headed in a reverse direction from San Francisco’s decision. From Azerbaijan to Singapore, governments are enthusiastically embracing facial recognition technology. Led by China, such systems are becoming increasingly ubiquitous. Facial recognition has been incorporated into smart city platforms. Cities are placing them on public lampposts and integrating them into security operations centers. While there is greater public awareness of China’s surveillance strategy – particularly its establishment of artificial intelligence-powered facial recognition repression in Xinjiang -- few realize that numerous other countries are developing facial recognition capabilities as well....
Former Director, Silicon Valley Office
Charlotte Stanton was the inaugural director of the Silicon Valley office of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as well as a fellow in Carnegie’s Technology and International Affairs Program.
Director and Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Steve Feldstein is a senior fellow and director of the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on technology, national security, the global context for democracy, and U.S. foreign policy.
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
In any defense establishment, change is an ongoing process. However, despite the best of intentions, existing bureaucracies, bound by habit and years of socialization, have their limits in implementing transformative change.
Anit Mukherjee
As AI grows more sophisticated, as the supply chains that power it become more contested, and as access to frontier models becomes geopolitically charged, India must begin to ask a different set of questions. Not what applications it can build on someone else’s infrastructure but what the world needs.
Konark Bhandari
The Indian Ocean Region hosts one of the densest concentrations of subsea cables in the world. Yet, despite accounting for a significant share of global internet traffic, India’s participation remains limited.
Charukeshi Bhatt
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha