To start, I’m sure many of you have seen or heard about the YouTube video of the black dude who shows that the webcam on the HP MediaCenter does not track his face but does track the face of his white co-worker. The vid is here, in case you haven’t seen. It’s pretty funny, too, because the dude (Desi) seems like a fun guy. When he says “I’m going to go on record and say HP computers are racist” you know he’s mostly joking, though it is really messed up that the camera doesn’t recognize his face as a face.
Now, this vid was uploaded to YouTube (ironically using the HP MediaCenter) on December 10th but it took a few days to really blow up around the ‘net. HP caught wind of it a couple of days ago and put up something on their blog mentioning lighting conditions and they were working to solve the problem and whatever. But that hasn’t stopped tons of commenters on blogs and Twitter and Facebook from declaring that HP is racist or, at least, its webcams are.
I find myself in a strange position here, because I’m about to say something I don’t normally say: people, there’s not racism here.
That’s not to say there isn’t a problem and a serious one. But it’s more along the lines of the stuff I pointed out yesterday with the digital frames. One of not thinking or considering, one of privilege and blindness, but I am failing to see how racism is involved.
Let’s back up a bit. In case you’re not sure what’s going on here technologically, there is a feature in some webcam software that is designed to zoom in on the face of a person looking into the camera. I don’t know why this feature is necessary, but obviously someone likes it. Anyway, Face Tracking is supposed to keep your face in close up no matter where you move within the webcam’s field of vision. It identifies what is a “face” by an algorithm I won’t even try to explain because I don’t know how it works. HP said something about measuring the distance between the eyes and cheekbones but, again, I have no clue. That is what Desi was trying to get to work in the video but could not.
The software behind all this is part of HP’s MediaCenter suite which looks like one big program all created by HP. However, that’s not exactly true. When I was playing around with the program I noticed that it was really similar to CyberLink’s YouCam software, from the way the buttons and settings menus were designed to the kinds of effects and avatars available.
It’s no secret that vendors often bring in third-party software then put their own branding on it. Why develop webcam software in house when perfectly good software already exists? You can find YouCam software on a ton of computers, not just HP, and you can also download it yourself. I put it on a computer of mine and tried the Face Tracking thing and it works the same. So, if anything, the software is “racist”, not the webcam and not the computer manufacturer.
Though HP probably did some testing to ensure that the software interacted well with their system, I doubt anyone at the company tested all of the features. That’s not their job, actually, that’s the job of the software developers. So if we’re going to look for culprits here, we need to turn our attention to CyberLink. I don’t know for sure, but I’m going to guess that the folks at CyberLink tested the Face Tracking with a few people, but either not with any dark-skinned employees (assuming they have some) or not in enough varying lighting conditions with said employees.
The webcams included with most notebooks and all-in-one PCs are not of the highest quality. They’re for Skype chatting and mking silly YouTube reaction videos or lip dubs. The brightness, contrast, and backlighting correction are rarely the best (I know, as I’ve tested dozens). And that’s where the software runs into problems.
Go look at this video, then this one. It shows that a simple change in the software’s settings makes the difference between the webcam being able to track the face of a dark-skinned person and not being able to. (Also note that different shades of dark skin make a difference, too.) So what’s the real problem here? It’s two fold: one, that the software developers didn’t properly take dark-skinned owners into consideration when creating the product. Two, that crappy webcams make everything worse in life.
Given all this, I don’t see racism here. I think this is a fine wake-up call for CyberLink or whoever actually made that software to expand their testing parameters. I am willing to bet that they probably didn’t take dark-skinned people into consideration, but I’m willing to be told I’m wrong. If they didn’t, it’s probably because all of the developers on the team were fairer-skinned (which doesn’t mean white. The webcam works fine for East Asian and light-skinned Black faces, for example). It’s looking more like a case of blindness due to privilege. Like I said, problematic, but not malicious or even unfixable.
For my part, I’m going to continue to enjoy the video that started it all. Because it’s damn funny. And though I hope people will stop just parroting the HP Is Racist line and start asking “Who made the software?” and “How can we get them to fix this problem?” I can’t force people to. Instead, I will just pop popcorn and watch the drama unfold.
And now a word from our sponsor…
| Your ad could be here, right now. |
On HP’s Racist Webcams (Or Lack Thereof)
Isn’t “not thinking or considering” out of “privilege and blindness” racism? I get that it’s not the personal racism of klansmen in sheets burning crosses, but based on every definition of institutionalized racism I’ve ever seen, it certainly fits the bill.
>> “One of not thinking or considering, one of privilege and blindness,”
>> “It’s looking more like a case of blindness due to privilege.”
“Blind” means unable to see. It does not mean ignorant, unobservant or intolerant.
It should be possible to discuss prejudice without insulting people who are, you know, actually blind.
Willow, is it ableist to refer to people as being blind to a situation or issue? (I’m honestly asking.)
Comrade PhysioProf, this question is being asked over on the original post, too, and I’m interested in discussing that. as I asked: Is being privileged and not recognizing it or the consequences of such the same as prejudice?
I’m with Comrade PhysioProf on this.
It’s also worth noting that this has been a problem with photography for my entire life (I would suspect that it’s been a problem for the entire history of photography). Film was made to photograph white people. As a result, darker skin doesn’t show up as well/lifelike as lighter skin. It seems to me that this has just been extended into the digital world.
ABW,
I think that the answer to that question is, “Yes.”
For example, I’ve noticed a difference in displays of racism here in the Pacific Northwest from that I grew up with in the Northeast. The difference is that in the PNW it seems to come more from ignorance than from interaction. I call it a more innocent racism, but that doesn’t make the results any less harmful.
That’s my anecdata.
No, it’s not. But it’s also pretty clear that racism is not merely co-extensive with personal prejudice, and manifests itself in other ways as well. Focusing on whether there are some “racist” or “prejudiced” engineers who have worked on this project is missing the point.
Dammit, where’s the post on Harry Potter’s racist webcams?
#4:
i wouldn’t say that film was “made to photograph white people”. film only photographs, and can capture any visual detail it’s meant to.
now, one could say that the typical light meter represents light skin more accurately than dark skin – but that’s not about people either. it’s just that the neutral-grey exposure standard means that the vast majority of photos will come out passably (though not perfectly) exposed.
yeah, accurately photographing black people is tricky. it requires doing a little bit of exposure compensation, etc, that isn’t necessary when photographing white or other light-skinned folks. but don’t blame the film – the problem lies with the photographer.
Check this article for discussion of the word “blind” used in a similar way:
http://deeplyproblematic.blogspot.com/2009/08/blinded-by-privileged-ableist-language.html
Also, an act need not be intentional or malicious to be condemnable. Negligence, too, can be evil. And it’s not like you can really call it ignorance, either. They have every piece of information they need to realize their assumptions are wrong, but retaining those assumptions, and avoiding really thinking about them, is easier and feels better.
JS at #4: Really? Do you have examples? I’m a BFA photo student and I’ve never heard anything of the sort. Film is made to capture as accurately as possible what is seen by the human eye — there is tremendous emphasis placed on capturing hundreds of shades, whether in B/W or color. Any even halfway skilled photographer knows how to use her light meter to properly render any color, dark or light. Photographing dark skin is different from photographing light skin, but both are totally possible; I’ve had more than one professor specifically address this to make sure students understand how to meter for different skin tones. Any failing is on the part of the photographer, not the film.
Then this is a non-issue. How often have we seen floor models improperly setup initially or screwed up by the constant stream of customers?
“Is being privileged and not recognizing it or the consequences of such the same as prejudice?”
Not necessarily, I suppose. But 1) it seems to me that not recognizing one’s own privilege may well be some kind of prerequisite; and 2) as one who subscribes to the Intentions Don’t Matter school, my position is that consequences are consequences. As far as I’m concerned, this is unintentionally racist. No question.
And while I laughed at the video, part of me didn’t. I got a camera last year that has an automatic face-finder to adjust the focus. It’s really sensitive. If there’s so much as a hubcap (ie: a lightish, roundish object) in the frame, it thinks that’s a face and wants to lock on. Come to find out it won’t recognize me. I laughed it off when I realized it, but… truth is, it was a bit of a buzzkill. Obviously it’s the software. But that software was designed by humans, for distribution in the United States. Even though I’m usually behind the camera, I had to turn the feature off. The effect is exactly as if some Stormfronter was standing at my elbow telling me I don’t matter. A hubcap is more significant.
Frankly, it’s a reminder I don’t need.
Oh, and, @ GeorgeT:
No, it’s still an issue. Because invisible POC is the default setting.
Default.
Musing here… let’s take it to the extreme: say you couldn’t tweak the settings from some control panel or whatever. Say it came programmed to find white faces only, under typical lighting conditions. It would still be possible for an advanced coder to get in there and just tweak, rewrite, or entirely replace the code. (All software is programmable.) But that initial default state would still be an “issue,” right?
“Because invisible POC is the default setting.”
Not invisible, *POC*, invisible *dark-skinned people*, those two concepts are as synonymous as the term implies after all. I’m sure the software has no trouble recognizing, say, East Asian faces…
I meant “aren’t”, not “are”, damn it…
@GinsuShark,
Aaargh *facepalm.* Of course you’re right.
I meant, and should have written, dark-skinned people.
My bad!
I agree with the intent-doesn’t-matter school myself – I thought you did too, to some extent, ABW. If the result is racist, even if there is no malicious racist intent, it’s…..racist.
HP did end up looking into the matter. HP e-mailed a statement that acknowledged that the webcam “may have issues with contrast recognition in certain lighting situations”. There were tests conducted by various sites that indicated that given the appropriate lighting conditions, the webcam worked just fine.
Racist HP Webcam: Tracks White People Only?