Chinese operators said to be cautious about 5G investment

Analysts are predicting an underwhelming start to 5G from its biggest market, with China’s giant operators taking a cautious approach to investment.

The Global Times reports that, between them, China Mobile, China Telecom and China Unicom will invest around $5 billion on 5G networks this year. This is apparently in line with “their pragmatic and cautious strategies”. Apparently China Telecom is dropping 9 billion yuan on 5G this year and China Unicom around 7 billion, which by the reports own assertions means China Mobile will be the big spender with 18 billion yuan.

“5G investment will last 10 years, considering the investment speed in 4G,” said some bloke called Huang, apparently. “It’s a pre-commercial time for 5G, so it’s a pre-commercial investment model.”

As you can see in the clip embedded below, another analyst echoed this perspective in a recent interview with Bloomberg. All this speculation about Chinese 5G prospects has probably been prompted by the recent announcement of China Telecom and China Mobile’s 2018 numbers. The two slides from their respective earnings presentations offer some further insight into their immediate 5G plans.

China telecom 2019 5G slide

China mobile 2019 5G slide

 

Germany pushes back against US Huawei threats

It tried scaring her, to convince her with niceties, the diplomatic approach and finally threats, but the US cannot seem to break the will of German Chancellor Angela Merkel over Huawei.

Speaking at the Global Solutions Summit this week, Merkel has continued to defy the desires and demands of the US over China and its telco champion Huawei. Germany is not only standing resolute against the political propaganda, but this message seems to be more of a push back against the White House.

“There are two things I don’t believe in,” Merkel said during the interview. “First, to discuss these very sensitive security questions publicly, and second, to exclude a company simply because it’s from a certain country.”

This has been the on-going message from Germany and it seems the US threat of intelligence exclusion has landed on deaf ears. Germany wants proof of nefarious activities, and it will not make a knee-jerk reaction to punish a company (or a country for that matter) when the drivers are political and economic.

While there is of course a threat of espionage from the Chinese Government, this on-going narrative is one chapter in the wider US/China trade saga. Threats should of course be assessed and mitigated in a reasonable fashion, but you must consider all branches of the storyline. And Germany isn’t buying into US chest beating.

In terms of what has actually been said, there are five key takeaways:

  • Sensitive security issues should not be discussed on the public stage
  • Punishing a single company is not the right way to ensure security
  • Targeting China due to its economic success is unfair
  • Security requirements should be across the ecosystem to mitigate risk
  • The same security requirements should be escalated to a European level

Each of these points made by Merkel this week, and various German government agencies for months, are completely fair, reasonable and pragmatic. But fair, reasonable and pragmatic does not help the US.

Why is Germany resisting?

The simple answer is that it doesn’t make sense to ban Huawei.

Firstly, from a competition perspective the telco industry is not flush with vendors, especially ones which can offer the same scale as Huawei. Removing Huawei, and Chinese vendors across the board, reduces the number of vendors available for telcos to choose from. This weakens the negotiating position of the telcos and, theoretically, slows down the deployment march.

Secondly, a Huawei ban would impact some European nations more than others and Germany is one of them. Huawei has deep relationships with German operators, with equipment embedded into 4G networks. Banning Huawei would potentially result in kit having to be ripped and replaced, slowing down progress, while backward compatibility becomes more difficult also, again, slowing down progress.

With the world increasingly being defined by wireless, Europe’s largest economy cannot afford to slip too far behind in the 5G race. According to data from Opensignal, Germany has been falling behind numerous European nations when it comes to average 4G speeds.

While it might not have a massive impact on what we associate with connectivity today, primarily consumer smartphone applications and entertainment, with 5G promising a revolution in the way connectivity influences enterprise and the economy, this could become much more of an issue in Germany.

In short, Germany cannot afford to stomach the consequences of banning Huawei.

The turning tide of momentum

The anti-China rhetoric from the US has been consistent and loud over the last couple of months, though it does not seem to be gathering the same support as during the initial propaganda assault.

After Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand seemingly turned against Huawei and China, the ear-whispering has not been as successful in Europe. The European continent has been a successful arena for Huawei in recent years, and such is the dependence of telco infrastructure on the vendor, it is unsurprising these nations are resisting the call to ban Huawei.

While individual states have been pushing back against US ambitions, this leaves the governments in slightly precarious positions. Such is the power and influence of the US economy, individually European nations will be in a frustrating negotiating position when defying US requests. However, escalating to a European level changes the dynamics.

This is perhaps why Merkel is keen to escalate this discussion to European Commission level. The power of the collective against US ambitions is an excellent way to mitigate risk on an individual level. Sovereign nation states often begrudgingly hand over power to the Brussels bureaucrats, but in this instance, it might prove to be a very pragmatic idea.

The European Commission was reportedly looking into new rules which would effectively ban member states from purchasing equipment from Chinese companies (although China would not be mentioned specifically), but we can’t see this carrying through. Brussels would face a huge amount of backlash when seemingly contradicting the wishes of the majority of its member states.

That said, should the US be able to produce concreate evidence of Chinese espionage and collusion with Huawei, attitudes could shift incredibly quickly.

What does this mean for Huawei?

This is neither good or bad; it’s pretty much maintaining the status quo.

Being banned in the US won’t really impact the prospects of the business, it never really cracked this market, while it will continue to maintain its healthy position in Asia. Europe is a key battle ground though.

Europe is in a difficult position. It needs to tread carefully to ensure it can still use equipment from the vendor. European governments will not want to ban Huawei and this continued resistance is a good sign for Huawei. Germany and the UK, two influential voices across the bloc, are both preparing frameworks to allow Huawei’s business to continue, and should such ambitions be escalated to the European Commission, these trends would likely continue.

Due to on-going security concerns, some of which are not fairy tales despite a lack of evidence, and telcos desires to introduce more diversity in the supply chain, Huawei is unlikely to dominate the 5G world in the same way it did 4G. This is far from a secured position, politics has a way of U-turning occasionally, but the anti-Huawei brigade is starting to run out of puff.

European Parliament expresses ‘deep concerns’ about Chinese 5G kit threat

The European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling for the European Commission to do something about China.

The resolution cropped up as the Parliament was also adopting the EU Cybersecurity Act, which will create the first EU-wide cybersecurity certification scheme once is has finished its meandering journey though the EU’s byzantine bureaucracy. It seems to be some kind of ‘kite mark’ that will certify a piece of kit has met the EU’s cybersecurity standards, and seems to view 5G

“MEPs express deep concern about recent allegations that 5G equipment may have embedded backdoors that would allow Chinese manufacturers and authorities to have unauthorised access to private and personal data and telecommunications in the EU,” said the announcement.

“They are also concerned that third-country equipment vendors might present a security risk for the EU, due to the laws of their country of origin obliging all enterprises to cooperate with the state in safeguarding a very broad definition of national security also outside their own country. In particular, the Chinese state security laws have triggered reactions in various countries, ranging from security assessments to outright bans.”

This comes hot on the heels of reports that the US has been laying some serious pressure on Germany to play ball when it comes to China – i.e. ban Huawei from 5G. On top of all this the European Commission has also proposed ten further actions around the bloc’s ongoing relationship with China, which you can see below.

Action 1: The EU will strengthen the EU’s cooperation with China to meet common responsibilities across all three pillars of the United Nations, Human Rights, Peace and Security, and Development.

Action 2: In order to fight climate change more effectively, the EU calls on China to peak its emissions before 2030, in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Action 3: The EU will deepen engagement on peace and security, building on the positive cooperation on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for Iran.

Action 4: To preserve its interest in stability, sustainable economic development and good governance in partner countries, the EU will apply more robustly the existing bilateral agreements and financial instruments, and work with China to follow the same principles through the implementation of the EU Strategy on Connecting Europe and Asia.

Action 5: In order to achieve a more balanced and reciprocal economic relationship, the EU calls on China to deliver on existing joint EU-China commitments. This includes reforming the World Trade Organisation, in particular on subsidies and forced technology transfers, and concluding bilateral agreements on investment by 2020, on geographical indications swiftly, and on aviation safety in the coming weeks.

Action 6: To promote reciprocity and open up procurement opportunities in China, the European Parliament and the Council should adopt the International Procurement Instrument before the end of 2019.

Action 7: To ensure that not only price but also high levels of labour and environmental standards are taken into account, the Commission will publish guidance by mid-2019 on the participation of foreign bidders and goods in the EU procurement market. The Commission, together with Member States, will conduct an overview of the implementation of the current framework to identify gaps before the end of 2019.

Action 8: To fully address the distortive effects of foreign state ownership and state financing in the internal market, the Commission will identify before the end of 2019 how to fill existing gaps in EU law.

Action 9: To safeguard against potential serious security implications for critical digital infrastructure, a common EU approach to the security of 5G networks is needed. To kickstart this, the European Commission will issue a Recommendation following the European Council.

Action 10: To detect and raise awareness of security risks posed by foreign investment in critical assets, technologies and infrastructure, Member States should ensure the swift, full and effective implementation of the Regulation on screening of foreign direct investment.

US reportedly pressures Germany over Huawei

After diplomacy failed to convince those pesky Europeans Huawei should be banned, the US has reportedly moved onto the tried and tested tactic for getting its way; being a bully.

It was never going to be long before the blunt hammer of political persuasion came out, and according to the Wall Street Journal, the White House is huffing, puffing and about to start swinging. The German Government has reportedly been told to ditch Huawei kit or it will be barred from accessing US intelligence databases.

Should the reports prove to be true, this would be the first time the US has threatened allies with direct consequences for ignoring the anti-China propaganda. That said, it should come as little surprise. The US is a political power not used to being told no, especially with the narcissistic President Trump acting as puppet master. Being nice can only get you so far, and the White House has seemingly had enough of those pesky Europeans making their own decisions.

While Huawei remains a company under scrutiny, the European nations has so far resisted any knee-jerk reactions. It has been rumoured Germany was preparing new security requirements which would protect itself and its citizens, but also allow Huawei to continue operating in the country, and last week was confirmation. The release of a draft bill, outlining the new security requirements laid out the German position; Huawei looked safe in Germany.

Germany is of course a large economy and a key trading partner of the US, though it is also a heavyweight amongst political featherweights in the European Union. In drafting these new security requirements, other countries across the bloc might follow suit, such is the influence of Berlin. Perhaps this is a situation which the dented-ego of the US would not allow, especially considering its lobby efforts have largely been ignored across the European continent.

With Europeans taking a more proportionate response to the threat of foreign actors, the US will of course not be happy. The bully of yesteryear is beating its chest, and collateral damage from the US/China trade war could be about to get much wider.

China backs Huawei for “refusing to be victimised like silent lambs”

Any remaining doubt that Huawei has become a pawn in a broader geopolitical game have been dispelled by the Chinese state’s direct involvement in its case.

At a press conference on the sidelines of the big National People’s Congress jamboree in Beijing China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi made it clear that he has got Huawei’s back in the legal action it has taken against the US government. This appears to be the first time the Chinese state has decided to get publicly involved in the matter, although it has surely been highly active behind the scenes throughout the process.

Wang’s comments appeared to address both the lawsuit and the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, who is in the process of being extradited from Canada to the US on fraud charges. The general tone of his comments is to paint the US as a bully and to praise Huawei for standing up to it. The possibility of Huawei or anyone within it actually having done anything wrong doesn’t seem to have been a consideration.

“We support the company and individual in question in seeking legal redress to protect their own interests and refusing to be victimized like silent lambs,” Wang is widely reported to have said. Meanwhile China Daily, to which we must credit the above image, reports that he said it is the duty of the Chinese government to protect the interests of Chinese businesses and citizens.

While it’s understandable that Wang feels that way it’s debatable how helpful this public intervention will be to Huawei. The fundamental charge against from a Western perspective is that it’s just too close to the Chinese state for comfort, so a protective outburst from that very same state would appear to confirm those suspicions.

Having said that it’s not like China can just take all this US provocation lying down. It might have decided to keep quiet about the US sales restrictions indefinitely if they hadn’t gone and arrested Wanzou, but now it’s personal. This marks the culmination of a counter-attack that has played out over the course of this week, about which the US has been uncharacteristically quiet.

Here’s a full translated transcript of Wang’s comments in Mandarin our research has dug up for you, which takes a slightly different slant on the ‘silence of the lambs’ quote.

Wang Yi: “We are determined to be impartial and objective, but it is plain to see that recent actions against Chinese businesses and individuals are not simply legal, but a deliberate political crackdown.  In this respect we have taken, and will continue to take, any steps necessary to protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese businesses and citizens, that is the absolute duty of the Chinese government.  At the same time we support the right of particular businesses and individuals to exercise their legal rights and safeguard their interests where appropriate and not be silent like lambs.”

Chinese reporter’s question: Everyone is very concerned about the case of Meng Wanzhou, which has made new progress yesterday. The Canadian court decided to postpone extradition hearing, while Huawei announced that it would sue the US government. In this matter, many public opinion believes that the United States is obviously political pressure on China’s high-tech enterprises, what do you think?

Wang Yi: “We believe justice will be served. What we want to safeguard today is not only the rights and interests of a business, but the legitimate right of a country and a nation to develop, and also the rights of all countries in the world who wish to improve their own level of scientific and technological development. We hope that all parties can abide by the rules, abandon prejudice, jointly create a level playing field for enterprises in various countries, and together provide a safe and reliable environment for people from all over the world to communicate. Thank you.”

Reports of Google China’s death are greatly exaggerated

Google engineers have found that the search giant has continued with its work on the controversial search engine customised for China.

It looks that our conclusion that Google has “terminated” its China project may have been premature. After the management bowed to pressure from both inside and outside of the company to stop the customised search engine for China, codenamed “Dragonfly”, some engineers have told The Intercept that they have seen new codes being added to the products meant for this project.

Despite that the engineers on Dragonfly have been promised to be reassigned to other tasks, and many of them are, Google engineers said they noticed around 100 engineers are still under the cost centre created for the Dragonfly project. Moreover, about 500 changes were made to the code repositories in December, and over 400 changes between January and February of this year. The codes have been developed for the mobile search apps that would be launched for Android and iOS users in China.

There is the possibility that these may be residuals from the suspended project. One source told The Intercept that the code changes could possibly be attributed to employees who have continued this year to wrap up aspects of the work they were doing to develop the Chinese search platform. But it is also worth noting that the Google leadership never formally rang the dead knell of Dragonfly.

The project, first surfaced last November, has angered quite a few Google employees that they voiced their concern to the management. This was also a focal point of Sundar Pichai’s Congressional testimony in December. At that time, multiple Congress members questioned Pichai on this point, including Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Tom Marino (R-PA), David Cicilline (D-RI), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), and Keith Rothfus (R-PA), according to the transcript. Pichai’s answers were carefully worded, when he repeated stated “right now there are no plans for us to launch a search product in China”. When challenged by Tom Marino, the Congressman from Pennsylvania, on the company’s future plan for China, Pichai dodged the question by saying “I’m happy to consult back and be transparent should we plan something there.”

On learning that Google has not entirely killed off Dragonfly, Anna Bacciarelli of Amnesty International told The Intercept, “it’s not only failing on its human rights responsibilities but ignoring the hundreds of Google employees, more than 70 human rights organizations, and hundreds of thousands of campaign supporters around the world who have all called on the company to respect human rights and drop Dragonfly.”

While Sergei Brin, who was behind Google’s decision to pull out of China in 2010, was ready to stand up to censorship and dictatorship, which he had known too well from his childhood in the former Soviet Union, Pichai has adopted a more mercantile approach towards questionable markets since he took over the helm at Google in 2015. In a more recent case, Google (and Apple) has refused to take down the app Absher from their app stores in Saudi Arabia, with Goolge claiming that the app does not violate its policies. The app allows men to control where women travel and offers alerts if and when they leave the country.

This has clearly irritated the lawmakers. 14 House members wrote to Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai, “Twenty first century innovations should not perpetuate sixteenth century tyranny. Keeping this application in your stores allows your companies and your American employees to be accomplices in the oppression of Saudi Arabian women and migrant workers.”

Think tank suggests UK is ‘naïve’ to trust Huawei

A defence and security think tank has condemned the UK government, suggesting it at best naïve and at worst irresponsible for trusting Chinese vendor Huawei.

With the UK seemingly rejecting the US’ aggressive stance against China and its internationally successful businesses, it looks like the isles will be a safe haven for Huawei. That said, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has undermined the position of the government and the National Cybersecurity Centre suggesting there is a very real threat to the rhetoric.

“There must be a balance between national security interests and technological gain, because the UK benefits from the contributions of Chinese research students in the UK,” the report states.

Economically, technologically and politically, there is a lot to gain from a relationship with China, the RUSI suggests such governments should be treated with caution. Although there is little concrete evidence which connects Huawei with the Chinese government, at least on the grounds of espionage, that is not to say caution should not be exercised.

While it might sound like scaremongering, RUSI highlights four points. Firstly, the Chinese government has history in using technology for espionage. Secondly, placing a backdoor in communications infrastructure is a lot easier than finding one. Thirdly, due to certain laws, Huawei employees might have no choice but to aide the government in its ambitions. Finally, the UK might ostracize itself economically through working with the vendor.

The final point is an interesting one. The UK is part of the Five Eyes intelligence allegiance alongside the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Three of these nations have already banned Huawei from participating in 5G networks and may not be enthusiastic developing closer relationships with those who have not. Considering part of the justification for Brexit was to have the freedom to forge new trade relationships, the UK might well be scuppering its ambitions before its even left the Union.

In short, the RUSI is effectively suggesting the UK should ban Huawei, as well as other Chinese companies, from accessing or contributing any components or services which access data or functions which might compromise national security. Telecommunications infrastructure and the national power grid are two examples.

If this position does sound familiar it might be because this is the same propaganda which US officials have been peddling around Europe over the last couple of months. Many of the threats identified by the RUSI are theoretical or circumstantial, but they are true. That said, the RUSI is wandering dangerously close to the pig-headed ‘he said, she said’ approach to international politics which has plagued the White House over the last couple of months.

As it stands, Huawei is not in the healthiest position, but it is certainly far from the gutter and a powerful influence on the telecommunications and technology world. There are numerous governments which are pondering their positions, but it does seem the anti-China rhetoric is losing momentum.

“No way US can crush us” – Huawei founder hits back

The usually publicity-shy Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei has hit back at what he perceives as a politically motivated attack, declaring if “the lights go out in the West, the East will shine”.

Although the US government has sustained the anti-China rhetoric over the last couple of months, with Huawei being the focal point of any aggression, the firm is holding strong. That is the message from Zhengfei, a usually media-adverse individual who is currently being carted around Europe in a show of strength against the White House. The aim for Huawei is to demonstrate transparency, and it does seem to be working in Europe.

“There’s no way the world can crush us,” said Zhengfei, in an interview with the BBC. “The world needs Huawei because we are more advanced. Even if they persuade more countries not to use us temporarily, we could just scale things down a bit. And because the US keeps targeting us and finding fault with us, it has forced us to improve our products and services.

“If the lights go out in the West, the East will shine. And if the North goes dark, there is still the South. America does not represent the world.”

While these comments are unusually aggressive for a man who does not like the limelight, they could prove as the perfect antagonistic weapon against President Trump. Zhengfei is sending a simple message across the Atlantic in this interview; the world is not siding with you in this quest.

Huawei has become a proxy in the overarching conflict between the US and China, though it is certainly faring better now than it did a couple of months back. During the initial exchanges, there was a considerable amount of collateral damage heading Huawei’s direction. Banned from providing equipment in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, plus other omissions in countries such as South Korea, it was an ominous sign. But Europe is seemingly not agreeing with Trump.

In the wider US/China dispute, Europe is a critical battle ground. As a bloc, the European Union is the second largest economy in the world. For both China and the US, winning favour would go a long-way to establishing political and economic dominance over the other. And Europe does not seem to share the same deep-rooted distaste for China as the US is currently harbouring.

Many European economies have established trade relationships with the Chinese, and while there are long-standing partnerships with the US also, none of these countries seem to want to readily shun the Chinese. This is the advantage which Huawei has in Europe, these are not nations which will so easily bow to the outside influence of the US.

In the UK, for instance, China is the 5th largest trade partner, as it is also in Germany. Its down in 7th for France, but still accounts for 4.3% of total trade, as it is in Italy for 3% of the total. For Belgium, China is the third largest partner outside of the European Union, while it is the second largest outside the bloc for the Netherlands. Trade with China is too important for the member states to consider siding with the US in the larger international conflict.

Of course, what you have to bear in mind is the over-arching European Commission supposedly considering ways to ban Chinese companies from contributing to critical infrastructure programmes. US Vice President Mike Pence has been touring Europe to talk up the importance of making a stance against China, and also dropping hints other European nations should ditch the Union, but success with the individual member states is looking far more limited.

With Germany and the UK seemingly favouring an approach which would heighten security protocols but still allow Huawei to operate, the Chinese firm is seemingly winning on the continent. With the US throwing political heavyweights at the nation states, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was another to join the crusade of fear-mongering, the US might soon become quite agitated. Huawei’s resistance might infuriate the Oval Office, but the inability to bend Europe into its own image of perfection might will frustrate.

Europe was supposed to be a political boost for the US ambitions against China. This is of course the bloc which the US saved from the ravages of World War II and also a steadfast set of allies over the last few decades. Whatever the US has done, Europe has generally agreed to. But it seems the brash and aggressive style is not palatable to the conscientious and risk-adverse Europeans.

For Huawei, this is a massive battle. Europe as a whole is the largest market outside of China for Huawei, representing billions of dollars’ worth of business. However, its not just the network infrastructure ambitions at risk her, let’s not forget the consumer business has been making considerable progress across the bloc as well. The fact Huawei is wheeling Zhengfei around demonstrates how important this region is to the company.

President Trump sees himself as one of life’s winners. As the self-proclaimed ‘deal marker’, this is a man who is used to getting his way. With the power of the White House and US economy behind him, this is not an outcome he would have imagined. The stubbornness of the Europeans might force the White House into more drastic action before too long.

Facial recognition is being used in China’s monitoring network

A publicly accessible database managed by a surveillance contractor showed China has used a full suite of AI tools to monitor its Uyghur population in the far west of the country.

Victor Gevers, a cyber security expert and a researcher at the non-profit GDI Foundation, found that a database managed by SenseNets, a Chinese surveillance company, and housed in China Unicom cloud platform, has stored large quantities of tracking data of the residents in the Xinjiang autonomous region in west China. The majority of monitored are the Uyghur ethnic group. The data covered a total number of nearly 2.6 million people (2,565,724 to be precise), including personal information like their ID card details (issue & expire dates, sex, ethnic group, home address, birthday, photo) as well employer details, and the locations they have been tracked (using facial recognition) in the last 24 hours, during which time a total of 6,680,348 records were registered, according to Gevers.

Neither the scope nor the level of detail of the monitoring should be a surprise, given the measures used by China in that part of the country over the last two years. If there is anything embarrassing for the Chinese authorities and their contractors in this story, it will be the total failure of data security: the database was not protected at all. By the time Gevers notified the administrators at SenseNets, it had been accessible to anyone for at least half a year, according to the access log. The database has since been secured, opened, and secured again. Gevers also found out that the database was built on a pirate edition of Windows Server 2012. Police stations, hotels, and other service and business establishments are also found to have connected to the database.

This is a classic example of human errors defeating security systems. Not too long ago, Jeff Bezos of Amazon sent intimate pictures to his female companion, which ended up in the wrong hands. This led to the BBC’s quip that Bezos was the weak link in cybersecurity for the world’s leading cloud service provider.

Like other technologies, facial recognition can be used by overbearing governments for monitoring purposes, breaking all privacy protection. But it can also do tremendous good. EU citizens travelling between the UK and the Schengen Area have long got used to having their passports read by a machine then their faces matched by a camera. The AI technologies behind the experience have vastly simplified and expediated the immigration process. But, sometimes, for some reason, the machine may fail to recognise a face. In that case, there is always an immigration officer at the desk to do manual check.

Facial recognition, coupled with other technologies, for example blockchain, can also improve the efficiency in industries like cross-border logistics. The long border between Sweden and Norway is largely open despite that a passenger or cargo vehicle travelling from one country to another would be technically moving between inside the EU (Sweden) and outside of it (Norway). According to an article in The Economist, the frictionless transit needs digitalisation of documentation (of goods as well as on people), facial recognition (of drivers), sensors on the border (to read code on the driver’s mobile phone), and automatic number-plate recognition (of the vehicles).

In cases like these, facial recognition, and AI in general, should be lauded. What the world should be on alert to is how the data is being used and who has access to it.