The entire tone of the article, and indeed her own comments, is that this racial bias is somehow problematic or must be gotten rid of.
> What’s struck a chord about Boulamwini’s work is her method of testing the systems created by well-known companies. She applies such systems to a skin-tone scale used by dermatologists, then names and shames those that show racial and gender bias. Buolamwini, who’s also founded a coalition of scholars, activists and others called the Algorithmic Justice League, has blended her scholarly investigations with activism.
The question of differential identification between white and black may merely be a question of physics (ie, any recognition system has an easier time of white people because of how optics work), and the relevant question for implementing facial recognition is if it works well enough at identifying black people to be usable. To name and shame people because their product responds to genuine physical differences in groups of people is absurd.
Comparing white people and black people without acknowledging the racial disparity in optical response is race baiting; comparing men and women without acknowledging the broad scale difference in bone structure is gender baiting.
Why?
Because there is no problem with a racial or gender bias if it extends from a physiological difference, and not willful discrimination.
Her research is the equivalent of concluding the grocery store is problematically heightist because tall people have an easier time reaching the top shelf — unseriousness unworthy of the topic, and outrage bait.