Unrekognizable

[Bloomberg]( Follow Us //link.mail.bloombergbusiness.com/click/20622679.72586/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS90ZWNobm9sb2d5/582c8673566a94262a8b49bdB1c9c225a [Get the newsletter]( Hey y’all, it’s Austin. Last week, amid ongoing protests against police brutality sparked by the death of George Floyd, [Amazon.com Inc. instituted]( a one-year moratorium barring U.S. law enforcement agencies from using its facial-recognition technology. Amazon joined a chorus of tech giants calling for stricter government oversight of the technology. It was an abrupt change from the industry’s longtime stance that regulation would be an obstacle to innovation and a gift to Chinese companies. The reversal on facial recognition represents one of the most concrete and substantial changes in the technology industry spurred by the current racial justice movement. The move by Amazon is a surprising about-face for one of the most ardent defenders of supplying artificial-intelligence tools to law enforcement. Amazon’s product, called Rekognition, has repeatedly come under fire from [civil rights groups]( and [researchers for racial bias discovered]( in the AI-powered software. For years, U.S. tech companies have used the threat of Chinese AI supremacy to stave off government interference with their machine-learning businesses, particularly when it comes to facial recognition. Placing onerous rules on American technology, they argued, risks giving less-scrupulous international companies an opportunity to steal contracts with U.S. police departments and do who-knows-what with the data. Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook Inc. chief executive officer, was among those who championed this idea [at a U.S. Congressional hearing in 2018](. “Some of these use cases that are very sensitive, like face recognition,” Zuckerberg said, “we still need to make it so that American companies can innovate in those areas. Or else we’re going to fall behind Chinese competitors and others around the world who have different regimes for different, new features like that.” This contention—that regulating [U.S. tech companies means strengthening Chinese rivals](—has gained traction in the Trump administration. While the [European Union is considering a sweeping, five-year ban]( on facial recognition in public places, the White House has [focused on blacklisting China AI](, which dominates the global [facial-recognition market]( and is [shaping world standards]( around the technology. Echoing Zuckerberg’s sentiments, Michael Kratsios, an adviser to President Donald Trump who serves as chief technology officer of the U.S., advocated in January for a laissez-faire approach, [suggesting that bureaucratic encroachment]( would get in the way of Silicon Valley innovation. “The best way to counter authoritarian uses of AI is to make sure America and its international partners remain global hubs of innovation,” [Kratsios said](. When the U.S. joined a [Group of Seven pact on AI]( last month, Kratsios said the project could help combat China. Tech companies are now walking a fine line of advocating for AI policy and expressing openness to at least some form of national rules while [lobbying against more severe laws]( that might blunt their competitive edge. Meanwhile, they’re taking meaningful steps at addressing potential for misuse. International Business Machines Corp. said last week it would [exit the facial-recognition business altogether](, citing dangers of mass surveillance and algorithm-fueled racial profiling. Microsoft Corp. decided to [cease selling the software]( to U.S. police departments until federal regulation is in place to protect against human-rights violations. Amazon, too, said it’s advocating for “stronger regulations.” Don’t give tech companies too much credit for their long-overdue ethical epiphany. If these tools are so hazardous, why limit the prohibition to American police forces and not other government agencies, domestic and abroad? Moreover, why make the Rekognition moratorium last a mere 12 months? Will Amazon simply go back to selling the software to police in a year regardless of whether Congress fails to act? Even after achieving social enlightenment, it appears tech companies aren’t quite ready to give up their fixation on an AI threat from abroad. “If all of the responsible companies in this country cede this market to those that are not prepared to make a stand, we won’t necessarily serve the national interest or the lives of the black and African-American people of this national well,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president, [said Thursday](. “We need Congress to act, not just tech companies alone.” —[Austin Carr](mailto:acarr54@bloomberg.net)  If you read one thing United Microelectronics faces a NT$100 million ($3.4 million) fine after a Taiwanese court ruled Friday that current and former engineers [stole trade secrets]( from U.S. chipmaker Micron Technology and shared them with a government-backed Chinese company.  And here’s what you need to know in global technology news Airbnb has settled a major lawsuit against New York City, one of the home-rental company’s largest markets, and [agreed to hand over data]( that will help officials weed out illegal listings. The Covid-19 pandemic has harmed startup valuations, but in a small bright spot, April venture-funding rounds proved [more lucrative than in March](, according to a new report from a Silicon Valley law firm. Meanwhile, [robotics companies]( and [contact-tracing services]( are racing to win the coronavirus-era market. JPMorgan lauded the staying power of cryptocurrencies, citing 75% gains of since mid-March of Bitcoin, which is [trading around $9,500](. You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg's Fully Charged newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Bloomberg.com]( | [Contact Us]( Bloomberg L.P. 731 Lexington, New York, NY, 10022