Senators Seek FTC Probe of ID.me Selfie Technology
In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission requesting an investigation, four Democratic senators asked the regulator to examine whether identity verification company ID.me's statements pointed to its use of illegal "deceptive and unfair business practices."
May 18, 2022 at 12:41 PM
5 minute read
A group of Democratic senators has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether identity verification company ID.me illegally misled consumers and government agencies over its use of controversial facial recognition software.
ID.me, which uses a mixture of selfies, document scans, and other methods to verify people's identities online, has grown rapidly during the coronavirus pandemic, largely as a result of contracts with state unemployment departments and federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service.
The company, which says it has more than 80 million users, has also faced growing questions about that role as well as whether a private contractor should be allowed to act as a de facto gatekeeper to government services. It is already the subject of an investigation by the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
Key to the concerns have been questions about ID.me's use of facial recognition technology. After long claiming that it only used "one-to-one" technology that compared selfies taken by users to scans of a driver's license or other government-issued ID the company earlier this year said it actually maintained a database of facial scans and used more controversial "one-to-many" technology.
In a letter sent to FTC chairman Lina Khan requesting an investigation, Sens. Ron Wyden, Cory Booker, Ed Markey and Alex Padilla on Wednesday asked the regulator to examine whether the company's statements pointed to its use of illegal "deceptive and unfair business practices."
ID.me's initial statements about its facial recognition software appeared to have been employed to mislead both consumers and government officials, the senators wrote in the letter.
"Americans have particular reason to be concerned about the difference between these two types of facial recognition," the senators said. "While one-to-one recognition involves a one-time comparison of two images in order to confirm an applicant's identity, the use of one-to-many recognition means that millions of innocent people will have their photographs endlessly queried as part of a digital "line up."
The use of one-to-many technology also raised concerns about false matches that led to applicants being denied benefits or having to wait months to receive them, the senators said. The risk was "especially acute" for people of color, with tests showing many facial recognition algorithms have higher rates of false matches for Black and Asian users.
Questions over ID.me's use of facial recognition software surfaced in January after the publication of a Bloomberg Businessweek article on the company. That coincided with growing concerns over an $86 million contract with the IRS that would have required American taxpayers to enroll in ID.me in order to use online services. The IRS has since announced that it is looking at alternatives to ID.me.
In interviews with Bloomberg Businessweek as well as in a January blog post by Bake Hall, its chief executive officer, ID.me had defended the fairness of its facial recognition systems partly by saying the company merely used a one-to-one matching system that compares a selfie taken by the user with their photo ID. "Our 1:1 face match is comparable to taking a selfie to unlock a smartphone. ID.me does not use 1:many facial recognition, which is more complex and problematic," Hall wrote in the post.
A week later, Hall corrected the record in a post on LinkedIn, saying the company did use a one-to-many facial recognition system, in which an image is compared against often-massive databases of photos.
Hall, in that post, said the company's use of a one-to-many algorithm was limited to checks for government programs it says are targeted by organized crime and does not involve any external or government database.
"This step is not tied to identity verification," Hall wrote. "It does not block legitimate users from verifying their identity, nor is it used for any other purpose other than to prevent identity theft. Data shows that removing this control would immediately lead to significant identity theft and organized crime."
While researchers and activists have raised concerns about privacy, accuracy and bias issues in both systems, multiple studies show the one-to-many systems perform poorly on photos of people with darker skin, especially women. Companies such as Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. have as a result paused selling those types of software to police departments and have asked for government regulation in the field.
According to internal Slack messages obtained by CyberScoop, ID.me's software, demonstrated to the IRS, made use of Amazon's Rekognition product, the very same one that Amazon has stopped selling to law enforcement.
The company had not disclosed its use of Rekognition in a white paper on its technology issued earlier that month.
Privacy and artificial intelligence safety advocates have also complained that ID.me has not opened up its facial recognition systems to outside audit.
Shawn Donnan and Dina Bass report for Bloomberg News.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Winston & Strawn partners Amanda Groves and Shawn R. Obi have entered appearances for Wells Fargo Bank in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 13 in California Northern District Court by the Kazerouni Law Group and Kellett & Bartholow, contends that Wells Fargo overcharged tens of thousands of customers on their mortgage loan accounts and attempted to downplay liability by sending out 'cryptic' letters and cashier checks. According to the suit, the defendant's failure to disclose to customers how their accounts were overcharged or to provide any accounting or itemization of actual damages constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, is 3:24-cv-05105, Prado v. Wells Fargo & Company et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250