skip to main content
10.1145/3287560.3287568acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

The Profiling Potential of Computer Vision and the Challenge of Computational Empiricism

Authors Info & Claims
Published:29 January 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Computer vision and other biometrics data science applications have commenced a new project of profiling people. Rather than using 'transaction generated information', these systems measure the 'real world' and produce an assessment of the 'world state' - in this case an assessment of some individual trait. Instead of using proxies or scores to evaluate people, they increasingly deploy a logic of revealing the truth about reality and the people within it. While these profiling knowledge claims are sometimes tentative, they increasingly suggest that only through computation can these excesses of reality be captured and understood. This article explores the bases of those claims in the systems of measurement, representation, and classification deployed in computer vision. It asks if there is something new in this type of knowledge claim, sketches an account of a new form of computational empiricism being operationalised, and questions what kind of human subject is being constructed by these technological systems and practices. Finally, the article explores legal mechanisms for contesting the emergence of computational empiricism as the dominant knowledge platform for understanding the world and the people within it.

References

  1. 1898. The New Sight and the New Photography.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2016-05-04. REGULATION (EU) No 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). OJ L 119 (2016-05-04), 1--88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Saeed Abdullah, Mark Matthews, Ellen Frank, Gavin Doherty, Geri Gay, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2016. Automatic detection of social rhythms in bipolar disorder. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 23, 3 (2016), 538--543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Thomas Alley. 1988. Physiognomy and Social Perception. In Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces, Thomas Alley (Ed.). Laurence Erlbaum Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Nalini Ambady and John Skowronski (eds). {n. d.}. First Impressions, year = 2008, isbn = 978-1593857165, publisher = The Guilford Press,.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Mark Andrejevic. 2012. Brain Whisperers: Cutting Through the Clutter with Neuromarketing. Somatechnics 2(2) (2012), 198--215.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Emily Apter. 2016. Shibboleth: Policing by Ear and Forensic Listening in Projects by Lawrence Abu Hamdan. October 156 (2016), 100--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Yoshua Bengio, Aaron C. Courville, and Pascal Vincent. 2012. Unsupervised Feature Learning and Deep Learning: A Review and New Perspectives. CoRR abs/1206.5538 (2012). arXiv:1206.5538 http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5538Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Walter Benjamin. 1980. A Short History of Photography 1934. In Classic Essays on Photography, Alan Trachtenberg (Ed.). Leete Island Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Margaret Mitchell Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Alexander Todorov. 2017. Physiognomy's new Clothes. https://medium.com/@blaisea/physiognomys-new-clothes-f2d4b59fdd6aGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Solon Borocas and Andrew Selbst. 2016. Big Data's Disparate Impact. California Law Review 104(3) (2016), 671--732.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. James Bridle. 18 December 2013. How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance. https://medium.com/matter/how-britain-exported-next-generation-surveillance-d15b5801b79eGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. M. Brown. 1984. Computer Vision and Natural Constraints. 224, 4655 (1984), 1299--1305. arXiv:http://.mag.org/content/224/4655/1299.full.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee Bygrave. 2010. Privacy and Data Protection in an international perspective. Scandinavian Studies in Law 56(8) (2010), 165--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Alvaro Bedoya Clare Garvie and Jonathan Frankle. 18 October 2018. The Perpetual Lineup: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America. https:/www.perpetuallineup.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Justin Clemens and Adam Nash. 2015. Being and Media: Digital Ontology after the Event of the End of Media. The Fibreculture Journal 24 (2015), 6--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kate Crawford. 2016. Can an Algorithm be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics., Technology & Human Values 41(1) (2016), 77--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. Zone Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Christopher Millard Dimitra Kamarinou and Jatinder Singh. 2016. Machine Learning with Personal Data. Technical Report 247. Queen Mary University of London School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Herbert Dreyfus. 2007. Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggarian. Artificial Intelligence 171(18) (2007), 1137--1160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Didier Ottinger (ed). 2008. Futurism. Centre Pompidou Five Continent Editions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Paul Edwards. 1996. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. MIT. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sergio Escalera, Xavier Baró, Hugo Jair Escalante, and Isabelle Guyon. 2017. ChaLearn Looking at People: Events and Resources. CoRR abs/1701.02664 (2017). arXiv:1701.02664 http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02664Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Fred H. Cate et al. 2017. Machine Learning with Personal Data: Is Data Protection Law Smart Enough to Meet the Challenge? Technical Report 2634. Articles by Maurer Faculty.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. V Dominique et al. 1997. What Represents a Face? A Computational Approach for the Integration of Physiological and Psychological Data. Perception 26 (1997), 1271--1288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating Inequality. St Martins Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Vilém Flusser. 2000. Towards a Philosophy of Photography. Anthony Mathews trans in Reaktion Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Francis Galton. 1879. Composite Portraits, Made by Combining Those of Many Different Persons into a Single Resultant Figure. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain 3 (1879), 132--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. William Gibson. 1984. Neuromancer. ACE Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. John Graham. 1961. Lavater's "Physiognomy": A Checklist. The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 55(4) (1961), 297--308.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ian Hacking. 1990. The Taming of Chance. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Bernard Harcourt. 2015. Exposed: Desire and Disobedience in the Digital Age. Harvard University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds). 1932. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvaed University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. N Katherine Hayles. 1999. How We Became Post-Human: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Infomatics. University of Chicago Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Douglas Heaven. 31 October 2018. An AI lie detector will interrogate travellers at some EU borders. https:/www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032023-400-an-ai-lie-detector-will-interrogate-travellers-at-some-eu-borders/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Mireille Hildebrandt. {n. d.}. Privacy as Protection of the Incomputable Self: From Agnostic to Agonistic Machine Learning. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3081776Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Mireille Hildebrandt. 2018. Law as Computation in the era of artificial legal intelligence: Speaking Law to the Power of Statistics. University of Toronto Law Journal 68, 1 (Jan. 2018), 12--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Anna Hoffman and Luke Stark. 11 September 2015. Are Face Recognition Systems Accurate? Depends on Your Race. https:/www.technologyreview.com/s/601786/are-face-recognition-systems-accurate-depends-on-your-raceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Paul Humphries. 1996. Computational Empiricism. In Topics in the Foundation of Statistics, Bas C. van Fraasen (Ed.). Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheila Jasanoff. 2017. Virtual, visible, and actionable: Data assemblages and the sightlines of justice. Big Data & Society 4, 2 (2017), 2053951717724477. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717724477Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Oscar H Gandy Jr. 2012. Statistical Surveillance: Remote Sensing in the Digital Age. In Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies, Kevin D Haggerty Kristie Ball and David Lyon (Eds.). Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Júlio C. S. Jacques Júnior, Yagmur Güçlütürk, Marc Pérez, Umut Güçlü, Carlos Andújar, Xavier Baró, Hugo Jair Escalante, Isabelle Guyon, Marcel A. J. van Gerven, Rob van Lier, and Sergio Escalera. 2018. First Impressions: A Survey on Computer Vision-Based Apparent Personality Trait Analysis. CoRR abs/1804.08046 (2018). arXiv:1804.08046 http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.08046Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jens Jäger. 2001. Photography: a means of surveillance? Judicial Photography 1850-1900. Crime, History & Societies 5(1) (2001), 27--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Yarden Katz. {n. d.}. Manufacturing an Artificial Intelligence Revolution. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078224Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Danielle Keats Citron and Frank Pasquale. 2014. The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review 89 (2014), 1--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Rob Kichin. 2014. Big data, New Epistemologies and Paradigm Shifts. Big Data and Society 1(1) (2014), (online).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Rob Kichin and Martin Dodge. 2011. Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. MIT. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. E Kozeny. 1962. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Ausdruckskunde mittel photographisch-statisticher Methode. Archive für die gesamte psychologic 114 (1962), 55--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Robin Kramer and Kay Ritchie. 14 December 2016. The Trouble with Facial Recognition technology (in the real world). https://theconversation.com/the-trouble-with-facial-recognition-technology-in-the-real-world-69685Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2012. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 1097--1105. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/4824-imagenet-classification-with-deep-convolutional-neural-networks.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Thomas Kuhn. 1961. The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science. Isis 52(2) (1961), 161--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521, 7553 (2015), 436--444.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Monique Mann and Marcus Smith. 2017. Automated facial recognition technology: Recent developments and approaches to oversight. University of New South Wales Law journal 40, 1 (2017), 121--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Mary Warner Marien. 2015. Photography: A Cultural History (4th ed). Laurence King Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Mark Matthews, Stephen Voida, Saeed Abdullah, Gavin Doherty, Tanzeem Choudhury, Sangha Im, and Geri Gay. 2015. In Situ Design for Mental Illness: Considering the Pathology of Bipolar Disorder in mHealth Design. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 86--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Roberta McGrath. 2002. Seeing her sex: Medical archives and the female body. Manchester University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Dan McQuillan. 2017. Data Science as Machinic Neoplatanism. Philosophy & Technology 31(2) (2017), 253--273.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Isak Mendoza and Lee Bygrave. 2017. A Short History of Photography 1934. In EU Internet Law: Regulation and Enforcement, Taitani Synodinou et al (Ed.). Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Jacques-Alain Miller and Richard Miller. 1987. Jeremy Bentham's Panoptic Device. October 41 (1987), 3--29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/778327Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Roddam Narasimha. 2001. Axiomatism and Computational Positivism: Two Mathematical Cultures in Pursuit of Exact Sciences. Journal of Medical Humanities 22(2) (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Cathy O'Neil. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction. Crown Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Mike Orcutt. 6 July 2016. Are Face Recognition Systems Accurate? Depends on Your Race. https:/www.technologyreview.com/s/601786/are-face-recognition-systems-accurate-depends-on-your-raceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Trevor Paglen. 8 December 2016. Invisible Images (Your Pictures are Looking at You). https://thenewinquiry.com/invisible-images-your-pictures-are-looking-at-you/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Frank Pasquale. 20 Aug 2018. Odd Numbers. http://reallifemag.com/odd-numbers/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Frank Pasquale. 2018. When Machine Learning is Facially Invalid. Commun. ACM 61, 9 (Aug. 2018), 25--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Simon JD Prince. 2012. Computer Vision: Models, Learning and Inference. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Hairong Qi and Wesley E. Snyder. 2004. Machine Vision. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Nicole Rafter. 2005. The Murderous Dutch Fiddler: Criminology, History and the Problem of Phrenology. Theoretical Criminology 9(1) (2005), 65--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Vlad Savov. 17 May 2018. Google's Selfish Ledger is an Unsettling Vision of Silicon Valley Social Engineering. https:/www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Joshua Scannell. 17 September 2018. Controlled Measures. http://reallifemag.com/controlled-measures/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Evan Selinger and Woodrow Hartzog. 22 June 2015. Opinion: It's time for an about-face on facial recognition. https:/www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2015/0622/Opinion-It-s-time-for-an-about-face-on-facial-recognitionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Jonathan Sterne. 2001. Mediate Auscultation, the Stethoscope, and the "Autopsy of the Living": Medicine's Acoustic Culture. Journal of Medical Humanities 22, 2 (01 Jun 2001), 115--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Jordan G Teicher. 18 July 2018. What Do Facial Recognition Technologies Mean for our Privacy? https:/www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/lens/what-do-facial-recognition-technologies-mean-for-our-privacy.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Valentin Thomas, Jules Pondard, Emmanuel Bengio, Marc Sarfati, Philippe Beaudoin, Marie-Jean Meurs, Joelle Pineau, Doina Precup, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Independently Controllable Factors. CoRR abs/1708.01289 (2017). arXiv:1708.01289 http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01289Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Alexander Todorov. 2017. Face Value: The Irresistable Influence of First Impressions. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Jeffrey M Valla, Stephen J Ceci, and Wendy M Williams. 2011. The Accuracy of Inferences about Criminality Based on Facial Appearance. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology 5(2) (2011), 66--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Jonathan Vanian. 13 July 2018. Microsoft President: Facial Recognition Technology Needs Government Regulation. http://fortune.com/2018/07/13/microsoft-facial-recognition-regulation/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Rui Wang, Weichen Wang, Min S. H. Aung, Dror Ben-Zeev, Rachel Brian, Andrew T. Campbell, Tanzeem Choudhury, Marta Hauser, John Kane, Emily A. Scherer, and Megan Walsh. 2017. Predicting Symptom Trajectories of Schizophrenia Using Mobile Sensing. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 1,3, Article 110 (Sept. 2017), 24 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Yilun Wang and Michal Kosinski. 2018. Deep Neural Networks are More Accurate than Humans at Detecting Sexual Orientation from Facial Images. Innovations in Social Psychology 114(2) (2018), 246--257. http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02664Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Leif Weatherby. 2018. Digital Metaphysics: The Cybernetic Idealism of Warren McCulloch. https://iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2018_Spring_Weatherby.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. J Willis and A Todorov. 2006. First Impressions: Making up your mind after 100ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science 17)7) (2006), 592--598.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Xiaolin Wu and Xi Zhang. 2016. Automated Inference on Criminality using Face Images. CoRR abs/1611.04135 (2016). arXiv:1611.04135 http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.04135Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Hee-Deok Yang and Seong-Whan Lee. 2006. Automatic Physiognomic Analysis by Classifying Facial Component Feature., 1212--1215 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Ting Zhang, Ri-Zhen Qin, Qiu-Lei Dong, Wei Gao, Hua-Rong Xu, and Zhan-Yi Hu. 2017. Physiognomy: Personality traits prediction by learning. International Journal of Automation and Computing 14, 4 (01 Aug 2017), 386--395. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The Profiling Potential of Computer Vision and the Challenge of Computational Empiricism

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            FAT* '19: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
            January 2019
            388 pages
            ISBN:9781450361255
            DOI:10.1145/3287560

            Copyright © 2019 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 29 January 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Upcoming Conference

            FAccT '24

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader