Further to my earlier update on the Facial Recognition Technology system recently established by the Fund (link at the end of this post), a further email exchange with Rosemarie McClean, Chief Executive of Pension Administration, UNJSPF, produced additional information. I note some remaining information gaps in my response.
I also noted in my email to Ms. McClean that the issue is only partly one of information gaps. It also encompasses concerns about transparency and trust relating to the operations and oversight of our Fund.
See the full exchange below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email to Rosemarie McClean
From Loraine Rickard-Martin
12 February 2021
Thank you for this additional information, including your assurances that the digital facial recognition CE system is optional and will not replace the paper-based process.
Regarding my questions about what proportion of the photographic data in setting up the system was of women and people of color, the accuracy of the technology, and procedures in place to address misidentification, no doubt because I do not have the necessary technical expertise, and while I appreciate your response, I'm unable to evaluate it.
You state that “no photograph database [was] set up for the Digital CE because users biometrics are not identified and compared against any other individuals’ photo or visual features”.
Yet the Fund’s webmail article states that “The Digital CE App uses an advanced facial recognition algorithm based on “learning” mechanisms that included data related to all ethnic groups.”
If not photographs, what is the nature of the “data related to all ethnic groups”?
On the cost of the system, as owners of the Fund, and for the sake of transparency, participants and beneficiaries should be able to know the actual cost of the system and ongoing maintenance, and not simply that it falls within “the approved IT budget for 2021.”
Finally, there are many reports by retirees about technical difficulties they’re encountering in registering for the system. One recent message received today from a retiree is typical of reports I'm receiving by email and those posted on social media: “I downloaded the app and the code they sent doesn’t work at all. They [the Fund] also failed to respond, it’s three days now….”
You’ve often said publicly, and stated in your presentation to the pension board meeting last July, that “the Fund need[s] a clear strategic direction and improved trust among its stakeholders.”
To your point, and a reality I’m sure you recognize, this issue is only partly about a gap in specific information on a new alternative CE system. The overarching issue is that a new system was put in place without prior consultation or outreach to Fund members about the what, why, and how’s of the system.
The result is the current widespread confusion, uncertainties, and concerns on the range of issues on which we've been corresponding. Many of the current concerns could have been mitigated had the Fund shared specifics of the pilot project, the third-party review on security issues, and provided guidance on specific technical issues, prior to launching the system.
Thank you for recognizing the trust deficit that exists among Fund members and for your prompt responses to my questions. I hope you'll take whatever steps are needed to build user confidence in the new system and to raise the overall trust level on issues surrounding our Fund.
As you’re clearly aware, the situation can only be addressed by increased levels of transparency, responsibility and accountability in the Fund’s operations and oversight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email from Rosemarie McClean
To Loraine Rickard-Martin
11 February 2021
Here are the answers to the questions you posed:
What assurances can the Fund provide that the aim is not to move eventually to a mandatory digital system, particularly in light of unequal access as stated in the Fund’s revised web article, that “access to the mobile app stores for Android or iOS (iPhone and iPad) to install the app can be limited in specific countries”?
The Fund confirms that the aim of the Digital Certificate app is to only be an alternative to the paper-based process.
Accuracy: What proportion of the photograph data in developing the digital system was of women and people of color; what was the level of accuracy of facial identification in the pilot program; and what procedures are in place to protect beneficiaries in cases of misidentification?
There was no photograph database set up for the Digital CE because users biometrics are not identified and compared against any other individuals’ photo or visual features. With the digital CE, users need to authenticate annually against their own recording kept in their own phone.
Cost of the system: Assuming that the Fund's information is accurate on the consumption of energy resources and environmental impact, what is the cost of the digital system and its required maintenance?
The project will be delivered within the approved IT budget for 2021.
Security: While the revised web article states that “The biometric data used by the App are captured and stored only locally, on the users’ device”, are beneficiaries using the digital system at risk for having their biometric data stolen from their devices?
The Digital CE is intended to operate on devices specifically designed to use biometric data, built with relevant software and hardware protections, which offers a high level of biometric data protection. Even in cases of stolen/lost devices, access to the Digital CE biometric data is protected by hardware encryption. Furthermore, an independent third-party review confirmed the security of the solution.
http://unpension.blogspot.com/2021/02/un-pension-fund-update-on-facial.html
No comments:
Post a Comment