skip to main content
10.1145/3546155.3547282acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Does Anyone Dream of Invisible A.I.? A Critique of the Making Invisible of A.I. Policing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

For most people, using their body to authenticate their identity is an integral part of daily life. From our fingerprints to our facial features, our physical characteristics store the information that identifies us as "us." This biometric information is becoming increasingly vital to the way we access and use technology. As more and more platform operators struggle with traffic from malicious bots on their servers, the burden of proof is on users, only this time they have to prove their very humanity and there is no court or jury to judge, but an invisible algorithmic system. In this paper, we critique the invisibilization of artificial intelligence policing. We argue that this practice obfuscates the underlying process of biometric verification. As a result, the new "invisible" tests leave no room for the user to question whether the process of questioning is even fair or ethical. We challenge this thesis by offering a juxtaposition with the science fiction imagining of the Turing test in Blade Runner to reevaluate the ethical grounds for reverse Turing tests, and we urge the research community to pursue alternative routes of bot identification that are more transparent and responsive.

References

  1. 8 Reasons The Voight-Kampff Machine is shit (and a redesign to fix it): 2019. https://scifiinterfaces.com/2019/12/10/8-reasons-the-voight-kampff-machine-is-shit-and-a-redesign-to-fix-it/. Accessed: 2022-04-24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Acien, A. BeCAPTCHA: Bot Detection in Smartphone Interaction using Touchscreen Biometrics and Mobile Sensors. 27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Alizadeh, F. 2020. eXplainable AI: take one step back, move two steps forward. Mensch und Computer 2020-Workshopband. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Alizadeh, F. 2021. I Don't Know, Is AI Also Used in Airbags?-An Empirical Study of Folk Concepts and People's Expectations of Current and Future Artificial Intelligence. i-com: Vol. 20, No. 1. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Alizadeh, F. 2022. The Reverse Turing Test: Being Human (is) enough in the Age of AI. Proceedings http://ceur-ws. org ISSN. 1613, (2022), 0073.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alizadeh, F. and Stevens, G. 2020. Think like a Human, Act like a Bot: Explaining Instagram's Automatic Ban Decisions. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alm, C.O. 2020. Invisible AI-driven HCI Systems – When, Why and How. Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (New York, NY, USA, Oct. 2020), 1–3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Biometrics: Bodies, Technologies, Biopolitics: https://www.routledge.com/Biometrics-Bodies-Technologies-Biopolitics/Pugliese/p/book/9780415811040. Accessed: 2022-04-27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Bucher, T. 2017. The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, communication & society. 20, 1 (2017), 30–44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. De Marsico, M. 2017. FATCHA: biometrics lends tools for CAPTCHAs. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 76, 4 (2017), 5117–5140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11]D'Ignazio, C. and Klein, L.F. 2020. Data Feminism. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Eslami, M. 2015. “ I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to [her]” Reasoning about Invisible Algorithms in News Feeds. Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (2015), 153–162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Eslami, M. 2017. “Be careful; things can be worse than they appear”: Understanding Biased Algorithms and Users’ Behavior around Them in Rating Platforms. Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media (2017), 62–71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Fortunati, L. 2019. You need to show that you are not a robot. New Media & Society. 21, 8 (Aug. 2019), 1859–1876. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819831971.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. GDPR & Recaptcha: How to stay compliant with GDPR: 2021. https://measuredcollective.com/gdpr-recaptcha-how-to-stay-compliant-with-gdpr/. Accessed: 2022-03-27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Google Can Now Tell You're Not a Robot With Just One Click | WIRED: https://www.wired.com/2014/12/google-one-click-recaptcha/. Accessed: 2022-04-27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Google's new reCAPTCHA has a dark side: 2019. https://www.fastcompany.com/90369697/googles-new-recaptcha-has-a-dark-side. Accessed: 2022-08-21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jang-Jaccard, J. and Nepal, S. 2014. A survey of emerging threats in cybersecurity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences. 80, 5 (Aug. 2014), 973–993. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2014.02.005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Krol, K. 2016. “ I don't like putting my face on the Internet!”: An acceptance study of face biometrics as a CAPTCHA replacement. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Identity, Security and Behavior Analysis (ISBA) (2016), 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Krol, K. 2016. Better the Devil You Know: A User Study of Two CAPTCHAs and a Possible Replacement Technology. Proceedings 2016 Workshop on Usable Security (San Diego, CA, 2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Magnet, S.A. 2011. When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race, and the Technology of Identity. Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nast, C. Death to CAPTCHA! Google wants to make them invisible using AI. Wired UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Pasquale, F. 2015. The black box society. The Black Box Society. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. reCAPTCHA: Easy on Humans, Hard on Bots: https://www.google.com/recaptcha/intro/invisible.html?ref=producthunt. Accessed: 2022-04-27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. TSL, W. 2017. Blade Runner: Rachel & Her 3 Questions. Medium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Turing, A.M. 2009. Computing machinery and intelligence. Parsing the turing test. Springer. 23–65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Voight-Kampff: 2022. https://speculativeidentities.com/research/voight-kampff. Accessed: 2022-04-24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Waters, S. I'm Not a Robot! So Why Won't Captchas Believe Me? Wired.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. WHEALE, N. 1991. Recognising a “human-Thing”: cyborgs, robots and replicants in Philip K. Dick's ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’ and Ridley Scott's ‘Blade Runner.’ Critical Survey. 3, 3 (1991), 297–304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Žižek, S. 2021. Blade Runner 2049: A View of Post-Human Capitalism. Lacanian Perspectives on Blade Runner 2049. Springer. 41–51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Biometric Technology - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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 Other conferences
    NordiCHI '22: Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference
    October 2022
    1091 pages
    ISBN:9781450396998
    DOI:10.1145/3546155

    Copyright © 2022 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: 8 October 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format