UN Pension Fund: Update on Facial Recognition Technology, 12 February 2021

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.

UN Pension Fund: Update on Facial Recognition Technology, 5 February 2021

  

This is an update concerning the UN Today article titled “The UN Pension Fund adopts facial recognition technology: Key questions” (link below) by Elaine Fultz, dated 4 February 2021 posted yesterday. 

 

I sent an email yesterday to Ms. Rosemarie McClean, Chief Executive of the Pension Administration, attaching the UN Today article for her information.

 

A few hours later, and to her credit, Ms. McClean wrote back to me to say that the UNJSPF’s web article (link below) on the launch of the digital CE system, had been revised to include answers to the questions in the UN Today article.

 

I responded to Ms. McClean by email today to thank her for her swift action in revising the web article. I also noted that while I recognize and appreciate that the web article now provides additional information on the  questions in the UN Today article,  I also believe there are information gaps.

 

First, here are excerpts from the responses in the revised web article to some of the questions in the UN Today article: (Go to the link below to read the entire response on each topic).

 

Coercion: “The paper-based form of the Certificate of Entitlement (CE) will still be available for those who do not want to adopt the Digital CE application.”

 

Security: “The biometric data used by the App are captured and stored only locally, on the users’ device. Therefore, users remain under full control of their data, at all times.”

 

Accuracy: “The Digital CE App uses an advanced facial recognition algorithm based on “learning” mechanisms that included data related to all ethnic groups.”

 

Efficiency: “The blockchain supporting the Digital CE does not involve the consumption of significant energy resources and/or extra costs, other than those typically associated with the support of ordinary ICT servers and applications.”

 

Here are the remaining questions that are, in my view,  as yet unanswered in the revised web article: 

 

Coercion: 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 to technology 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”?

 

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?

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?

 

Efficiency: 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? 

Note: While the UN Today article makes the point that "many UN retirees are not computer savvy or lack the latest technology" required to access the digital system, I meant to include the point in item 1 “Coercion”, that many retirees do not use electronic devices or the internet, and even those who have access and are familiar with digital technology have reported, since the launch of the new system, that they are hesitant to register for the above reasons, and/or are experiencing technical difficulties in attempting to register.

 

I’ll provide an update on whatever additional information Ms. McClean may provide.

 

https://untoday.org/pension-fund-adopts-facial-recognition/

 

https://www.unjspf.org/retirees-and-beneficiaries-the-new-digital-certificate-of-entitlement-app-is-now-live/

Loraine Rickard-Martin

5 February 2021

The UN Pension Fund's adopts facial recognition technology: Key questions, by Elaine Fultz, 4 February 2021

 

The UN Pension Fund Adopts Facial Recognition Technology: Key questions

By Elaine Fultz*

4 Feb 2021

"Last month, the UN Pension Fund launched a new app for annual recertification of pension eligibility.[1] This app is an alternative to the current paper recertification process, allowing retirees to  use electronic facial recognition technology (FRT) for biometric identification. The Fund portrays this app as a “convenience” for retirees that will “simplify their experience”.[2] However, there is little in this announcement or the materials that accompany it to reassure those who worry about risks associated with FRT, including misidentification due to built-in gender and racial biases, loss of personal privacy, misuse and theft of electronic data, and the inordinately high energy use of some FRT systems.[3] My search of the publicly available UNJSPF documents on its FRT initiative left me with four questions...."

Read full article here:

https://untoday.org/pension-fund-adopts-facial-recognition/ 

UN Pension Fund: Why should we trust these people? 29 January 2021

 

As per the message received by email today from the Fund and the message on the website (link below) inviting Fund beneficiaries to enroll in the digital CE (certificate of entitlement) system, I'm all for modernizing systems, but I have questions: 

How much does it cost? While it's optional now, will it eventually become mandatory? Do we have to jump through the digital hoops annually? Who does this new system benefit and how,  when many beneficiaries are not able to make use of it? What are the downsides, if any? Will we have a full and transparent accounting anytime soon?

 

In addition, in order to enroll in the system, Fund beneficiaries must download an app on our mobile device, make a video call through the app at the appointed time, and verify our biometric identity.

 

What about the many Fund beneficiaries (in AFICS/NY, fully 20 per cent) who do not use email and may not have electronic devices? If that's just New York, what about the numbers in other parts of the world?

 

https://www.unjspf.org/retirees-and-beneficiaries-the-new-digital-certificate-of-entitlement-app-is-now-live/

 

And at the heart of my skepticism about this new development are serious questions of trust in the people managing and overseeing our Fund:

 

Why should we trust people (the Fund administration) who, as only one recent example, continue to claim astronomical compliance rates in benefit processing against the 15 business day benchmark? How? It turns out that they achieved this by stopping and starting the clock when documents are missing! What happened to basic transparency and integrity, not to mention common sense?

Passblue: The UN Pension Fund’s Latest Flareups and Hazards to Whistleblowers, 23 December 2020

 

At the $79.4 billion United Nations pension fund, continuing tensions came to a head this month when the UN participant representatives to the pension board — elected representatives of 85,000 active UN staff members — wrote on Dec. 2 to the General Assembly body that oversees the fund about their concerns on a range of issues regarding the fund’s administration and governance.

The fund has a long history of whistleblowers calling attention to dubious actions and malfeasance by the fund’s leadership that have been later substantiated by internal audits. In this latest flareup, tensions are bound to intensify unless Secretary-General António Guterres steps in to end a pattern of unsavory actions by the board against the UN participant representatives.

READ MORE HERE:

https://www.passblue.com/2020/12/23/the-un-pension-funds-latest-flareups-and-hazards-to-whistleblowers/

UN Pension Fund: UN Participants Representatives' letter to the Secretary-General concerning the Board Chair's attempt to muzzle them, 12 December 2020

The UN Participants Representatives wrote to the Secretary-General today about the UN Pension Board Chair's attempt to discredit, intimidate, and muzzle them. In their open letter, they note that "The UNJSPF is a public pension fund. A veil of silence is neither a good idea nor is it a good management technique. Our Board meetings should be open to the current and future beneficiaries of the fund as they are in similar pension funds referred to by the independent entity “Mosaic” in its report, Annex XIV to the Board document."

 

UN Pension Board Chair tries to muzzle the UN Participants Representatives, 11 December 2020

In a letter dated 8 December 2020 to the Chair of the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, the Chair of the UN Pension Board, Martha Helena Lopez, also Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources, doubled down on  the Board’s longstanding attempts to suppress the voices of the UN Participants Representatives to the Board and block transparency.  (See letter below).

Describing them as a “small sub-group” of Board members, Lopez accuses them of breaching confidentiality obligations, and of violating UN staff rules and regulations about seeking to influence Member States.

 

In fact, the UN Participants Representatives are the duly elected representatives of 85,000 active UN staff –i.e. two-thirds of participants in the Fund for whom $50 billion is entrusted. 

 

Their crime? To have carried out their duty as Board members and briefed the General Assembly, which has ultimate oversight of the fund, on their concerns. These concerns, as they have indicated, include mis-spending of the Fund's budget, attempts to remove the Fund from the jurisdiction of the UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), attempts to disenfranchise hundreds of Fund staff/participants by excluding them from Board membership, reporting of fraud, and their views on Board governance reform. Hardly high treason, as Lopez seems to imply.

 

As members of a subsidiary organ of the GA, the 5^th Committee is entitled to understand their concerns and to understand any problems with how the fund operates. It’s well known that other groups on the Board do the same. 

 

The UN Participants’ Representatives would be remiss in their legal fiduciary duty if they did not make their concerns clear. 

 

Further, Lopez knows as well as anyone else that commenting on the board report, a public document, does not breach confidentiality. 

 

Lopez sends her message to the Fifth Committee Chair on behalf of the Board. Were the UN Participants Representatives, who are members of the Board with voting rights, given the courtesy of seeing her note before it was sent to the Fifth Committee? Or is this really a statement solely on her own behalf? It wouldn't be the first time that Lopez appears to confuse her roles of head of UNHR and Pension Board member.

This latest attempt to discredit, and bully and intimidate the UN Participant Representatives into silence is part of a pattern of such behavior by the Board leadership.  

There is much in the UN Participants Representatives' note to the Fifth Committee (see Note below) that the Board may indeed wish to suppress, such as paragraph 13 that cites their concern "about the lack of disclosure pertaining to fraud or presumptive fraud against the UNJSPF" and their recommendation that  "the General Assembly reiterate its requirement for accountability of the Board in line with oversight role."  

The UN Pension Board has serious governance challenges and significant variances with the best practices of other pension funds, as detailed in internal UN audit reports of the past several years and in a recent governance study mandated by the General Assembly (see  governance audit A/73/341 and the Mosaic study annexed to A/75/9).

The UN Participants Representatives have over the years demonstrated immense courage and perseverance in continuing to advocate for the interests of their constituencies in the face of such intimidation, of which Lopez’s letter is merely the latest salvo.  

 

See links to:

https://www.passblue.com/2019/10/10/the-67-billion-un-pension-fund-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

https://www.passblue.com/2020/11/12/the-75-billion-un-pension-fund-kicking-reforms-down-the-road/

Click 'read more' (below)  to read the Board Chair's letter to the Fifth Committee Chair, and the UN Participants Representatives Note to the Fifth Committee.