Microsoft goes farthest in opposing the facial recognition resolution, which it bluntly says “does not advance the interests of Microsoft, its shareholders, or other stakeholders.” Why? Well for one thing they’ve made public “commitments”, and they’ve done a lot of positive things! Also:
This proposal would impose a blunt prohibition that would deny public agencies the ability to deploy facial recognition technology in societally beneficial use cases.
Hey wait a second, that’s not what the resolution says! It explictly allows exceptions, it just asks the Board to disclose them. Luke Stark’s helpful analogy that facial recognition is like plutonium, incredibly toxic but with a few beneficial usages, is a good lens to look at this through. There may be exceptions, but tost of the time, spraying plutonium should be prohibited.
Of course some of the exceptions may be lucrative, and the Board wants Microsoft to be able to make money helping governments spray people with plutonium in “societally beneficial use cases.” The resolution allows that; they just have to disclose what they’re doing. Given how toxic facial recognition is, and how strong the evidence is that it’s harmful, that seems pretty reasonable to me!
In the “societally beneficial use cases” where Microsoft’s helping governments spray plutonium, the company should indeed disclose that they’re doing it. The human rights resolution They should also be ready to describe the “risk profiles,” how the safeguards are “calibrated,” and why it’s in the interests of all the “stakeholders” – including the ones who are being sprayed with plutonium.
Stay tuned for more
All of these resolutions are part of longer-term battles. In Arjuna Capital’s statement for resolution #2 (sexual harassment), they talk about the 2012 class action lawsuit from almost 300 women employees. #1, pay equity, has a history as well: Microsoft was sued by Black employees in a class action in the early 2000s, narrowly avoided a class action suit by women employees on gender inequity, and just last year settled with the Department of Labor over allegations of racial discrimination.
Similarly, the facial recognition resolution is only the latest skirmish in the interlocking multi-year fights over facial recognition and privacy. Resolution #5 (lobbying) has some of the backstory:
In 2020, Microsoft committed not to sell facial recognition to police “until there is a strong national law grounded in human rights,”7 and it has urged governments to consider “civilian oversight and accountability” of facial recognition.8 However, Microsoft lobbies for and testified in support of laws that enable police use of facial recognition and undermine such local accountability efforts.9 Last year, a Microsoft employee – who is also a Washington State Senator – prime sponsored10 a weak, industry-backed state facial recognition bill, which was strongly opposed by a large coalition of privacy advocates, racial justice advocates, and consumer rights organizations.11 Contradicting Microsoft’s claim that the Washington bill “offers protections for civil liberties,”12 privacy expert Jennifer Lee said Microsoft’s bill “purports to put safeguards…but does just the opposite.”
I was part of that large coalition opposing the 2020 facial recognition bill, and the bad privacy bill that Microsoft also supported but failed to pass. In 2021, the Microsoft employee / State Senator opposed even holding a hearing on a facial recognition moratorium bill, and also once again co-sponsored the Bad Washington Privacy Act (which once again Microsoft supported and once again did not pass). Microsoft’s put a lot of energy into”direct and indirect lobbying activities” as part of these battles, in Washington and across the country. As we get ready for the 2022 legislative session, and it’s a very good question how well these activities align with the company’s stated principles and policy commitments.
So even though Microsoft’s Board will almost certainly fend off the resolutions at this year’s meeting, the issue isn’t going away. Once the legislative session ends, activist investors will start planning for next year’s shareholder meeting; and if the legislature doesn’t act, there’s starting to be talk about a potential statewide initiative banning facial recognition. Stay tuned for more!
Links
- Scrutiny mounts on Microsoft’s surveillance technology in The Hill and Investors pressure Microsoft over surveillance tech policies in Windows Central have more on #3, #5, and the human rights review resolution.
- Dina Bass’ Microsoft Agrees to Human Rights Review in Deals With Law Enforcement, Government on Bloomberg Tech discusses the human rights resolution
- A bad day for a bad privacy bill, a good day for privacy has highlights from Stan Shikuma’s and Jennifer Lee’s testimony in 2020. You can see the full video here.
- Arjuna Capital’s Microsoft Needs Independent and Transparent Investigation of Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment has more about the background on #1 and #2
- Meet the Woman Who Convinced Apple, Starbucks, and Nike to Close Their Gender Pay Gaps has backstory about Arjuna’s Natasha Lamb.
- Bowing to investors, Microsoft will make its devices easier to fix describes another successful resolution, from right-to-repair activists.