In a letter to members of Congress, IBM says it's exiting the general-purpose facial recognition business and opposes the use of such tech for mass surveillance
In a letter to members of Congress on Monday, IBM said it is existing the general-purpose facial recognition business …
AxiosIna Fried
Context & Ripple Effects
IBM's letter lands after two years of escalating activist pressure: in 2018, nearly 20 [[a:930732|Amazon shareholder groups and the ACLU demanded Bezos halt Rekognition sales to law enforcement]]. By June 2020, all three of the big US cloud vendors had pulled back from general-purpose facial recognition within days of each other, turning a single-vendor controversy into an industry-wide retreat.
What makes the pledge consequential rather than symbolic is what followed: a later investigation found IBM signed a £54.7M contract to build a UK biometrics platform including facial recognition three years after promising to stop such work — evidence that voluntary corporate commitments in this space are reversible when government buyers appear.
First-order effects
IBM's police-facing facial recognition customers lose their vendor immediately, and the company's congressional letter converts its exit into a policy position against mass surveillance rather than a quiet product shutdown.
Amazon and Microsoft, already under their own shareholder and ACLU campaigns, now face a three-way norm where continuing to sell the tech to police looks like a competitive liability rather than revenue.
Second-order effects
Microsoft and Amazon respond by lobbying for federal rules instead of outright withdrawal, but as CNET's follow-up reported, lawmakers did not expect legislation within a year — leaving a gap between vendor pledges and enforceable law.
With the big clouds out or constrained, demand for police biometrics migrates toward smaller vendors and bespoke government contracts — the channel where IBM itself resurfaced with the UK deal.
Third-order effects
If the pattern holds, self-imposed moratoria function as reputational hedging rather than durable restraint: commitments made to Congress in one political moment get unwound through procurement channels like national ID and border programs when the buyer is a friendly state.
That gap pushes governance toward binding local ordinances and federal statutes rather than vendor promises — the trajectory the related coverage tracks through municipal bans and stalled congressional timelines.
The trend: Facial recognition governance is moving from vendor self-policing toward contested regulation, with corporate pledges proving negotiable once government buyers re-enter.
This is brilliant: 1) Fall woefully behind in a technology 2) Realize that you have no chance of ever catching up 3) Declare that the technology that you can't do is evil and promise to do no more of it 4) Write a letter to Congress 5) Profit! https://twitter.com/...
@evanselinger
Evan Selinger on x
While some companies think it's enough to tweet support for social justice while marketing a tool for oppression, IBM gets out of the facial recognition business & states opposition to mass surveillance & racial profiling. https://www.theverge.com/...
@mollymckew
Molly McKew on x
Very interesting letter from IBM — and +1 on this (tho already a bit late): “We believe now is the time to begin a national dialogue on whether and how facial recognition technology should be employed by domestic law enforcement agencies.” https://twitter.com/...
@meghara
Megha Rajagopalan on x
Thread: IBM is doing away with its facial recognition technology business and has called for a “national dialogue” on how face rec should be employed by law enforcement. This is a big deal for communities of color in the US. A few thoughts on this. https://www.ibm.com/...
@digitaldutta
Srinivas Kodali on x
Will the Indian tech dictators learn anything from the world or continue to push #facialrecognition in the name of contactless governance. https://techcrunch.com/...
@jathansadowski
Jathan Sadowski on x
And the previous 109 years of work? All the infrastructure IBM has built, systems IBM has maintained, ideas IBM has seeded, narratives IBM has constructed? Gonna remain silent on that? Let the past be the past? Bravely look to the future? Yeah, thought so. https://techcrunch.com/…
@amyzenunim
@amyzenunim on x
“yeah, y'know, we already contributed to one of the most notorious genocides in human history by selling computers to literal Nazis. maybe we should sit this one out” https://twitter.com/...
@wolven
@wolven on x
Be cautious. Be skeptical. But read the whole letter and HOLD THEM TO IT. Again: Arguably THE biggest, longest lasting name in Facial Rec said “No, we won't do it, it's bad.” That's huge. https://www.ibm.com/...
@doriantaylor
Dorian Taylor on x
wondering if this is code for “we couldn't wring out those false positives and the potential for product liability lawsuits was looking scary” https://www.axios.com/... (via @gretared @lorenschmidt @SumitGup &c)
@dinodaizovi
Dino A. Dai Zovi on x
“We believe now is the time to begin a national dialogue on whether and how facial recognition technology should be employed by domestic law enforcement agencies.” https://techcrunch.com/...
@caro_milanesi
Carolina Milanesi on x
Good on @IBM to take this step and openly call out and oppose the used of tech for mass surveillance, racial profiling and the violation of human rights. Timing could not be more perfect given what we have seen over the past week from cities like Seattle. https://twitter.com/...
@kirstengraham
Kirsten Graham on x
“IBM firmly opposes and will not condone uses of any technology, including facial recognition tech offered by other vendors, for mass surveillance, racial profiling, violations of basic human rights and freedoms...” said @IBM CEO @ArvindKrishna in a letter to Congress. @IBMpolicy…
@kimcrayton1
@kimcrayton1 on x
Another example of business leaders realizing after harm has been, that tech is NOT neutral https://twitter.com/...
@jessiwrites
Jessi Hempel on x
This huge #IBM move will force other large tech companies to take a stand, even if their silence is their statement. https://twitter.com/...
@fabiochiusi
Fabio Chiusi on x
Your turn now, Amazon. https://twitter.com/...
@chansteele
Chandra Steele on x
A pro-human rights move over 80 years after its chairman got a medal from Hitler. So better very very late than never. https://twitter.com/...
@nadiasdaly
Nadia Daly on x
Wow. IBM's CEO says the company will no longer sell facial recognition services, calling for a “national dialogue” on whether it should be used at all, citing concerns re “mass surveillance, racial profiling, violations of basic human rights and freedoms” https://www.cnbc.com/...
@beirutspring
Mustapha Hamoui on x
If the Americans won't advance this technology, the Chinese will. And it will become yet another thing Americans import from China. https://twitter.com/...