A report done by the Georgetown law school’s Center on
Privacy and Technology on the use of facial recognition technology by law
enforcement was published in October 2016. The investigation raised concerns
about the limited protections for and potential harm toward people’s privacy in
regards to rules and regulations (or often rather the lack thereof) for law
enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology, which can range from
running photos of persons being detained for unlawful behavior to real-time
scanning of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.
Summary of the Report
The report raised some troubling questions and problems and
proposed some possible solutions:
Accuracy: There is insufficient testing to check accuracy on
the software that is used by law enforcement agencies. Also, it has been found
that facial recognition software is often less accurate on African Americans,
women, and younger people, possibly because the software “learns” how to
recognize faces using datasets of photos of largely comprised of Caucasian,
older, males. In addition to these concerns, match results returned from
databases are not always checked by trained analysts to accurately match faces.
Possible solutions to these concerns are to have regular testing of the
accuracy of software, “train” the software on more diverse datasets of photos,
and ensure that trained analysts check match results.
1st and 4th Amendment Rights: Databases
of photos used by law enforcement agencies are often comprised of pictures of
law-abiding citizens (driver’s license photos, IDs, and mug shots from people
who were not convicted of a crime). Another concern is that facial recognition
has been used to identify people participating in protests, which may stifle
free speech. Facial recognition has not legally been determined by the US
government as a “search,” so it is not protected under American’s rights
against unreasonable searches. Possible solutions to these concerns are to only
allow searches of non-mug shot photos when there is probable cause involving a
serious crime and an issued court order and that the use of facial recognition
software should have legislative approval with laws to limit its use.
Regulations and Oversight: In many law enforcement agencies,
there is insufficient auditing done to protect against the abuse of facial
recognition technology. Also, use of this technology is not always made
available to the public. Another issue is that some law enforcement agencies do
not require probable cause before running a facial recognition search. Possible
solutions to these concerns are to have auditing of the use of facial
recognition searches, have policies on the use of the technology that are
available to the public and have received legislative approval, and, again,
require probable cause before making a search.
Legislative Response
After a different report on the use of facial recognition
technology by the Baltimore Police Department on a protest in 2015, members of
the legislative branch have called for answers to concerns. Senator Al Franken
(Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law) said, “Now, I
believe that facial recognition can be a very useful tool in the fight against
crime — it can in fact help us catch violent offenders and criminals. But I’m
also a firm believer that Americans have a fundamental right to privacy. So I
want to ensure that this technology is accurate, transparent, and that our use
of facial recognition technology appropriately balances privacy and public
safety.”
There is facial recognition technology set up at the StatewideInformation & Analysis Center in Sandy, UT. It is used only when there is
an active criminal investigation, except for its use to protect against
identity fraud when someone gets a new driver’s license or ID photo. The center does have human analysts check the
results that are returned by the technology to try to eliminate false
positives.
What Should Utah Law Enforcement Do With This Technology?
Utah Law Enforcement should be allowed to use facial
recognition technology, but only under certain conditions. Searches of
mug-shots should only be allowed when there is probably cause. Large scale surveillance
should only be allowed in the case that there is an emergency where the public
at large is in serious danger.
Utah is one of 16 states that allows the FBI to access their
database of driver’s license photos and IDs. They should ensure that these and any accesses are only used in the case of protecting against identity fraud and
when there is a serious emergency.
As far as I understand this technology - and it would be pretty amazing if it were otherwise - facial recognition technology can only work on faces in the database. From this point of view, it makes a lot of sense to have as large a database as possible. Even though large numbers of perfectly law-abiding citizens would be caught in the "drag net", so too would criminals. Putting aside the issue of false positives / false negatives as both you and Kali mentioned them (Facial recognition technology is so new, I wouldn't be surprised if in ~10 years this issue were to disappear), it sounds like a perfect law-enforcement tool.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is an obvious warning. I can find any number of dystopian novels in which the government has promised complete security and safety, but uses those powers to suppress the population. As my dad likes to say "Everyone is guilty of something". It seems like there is only one small step between "utopian democratic surveillance society" and "repressive police state". In a surveliance state, all a potential despot need to is dig up some pathetic crime - probably committed accidentally in the course of everyday life - to have his detractors locked up.
I feel like facial recognition and surveillance is another area in which we might find the "I have nothing to hide" argument. I can only imagine that a good number of people would make the argument that seeing as they aren't involved in criminal activity on a regular basis, that facial recognition software ought to be used as much as law enforcement authorities see fit. As we have seen, however, there is great danger in this argument. I believe that the use of facial recognition software blends in with the availability of and actual capturing of photographic and video surveillance of individuals. I agree with your assertion that these software and the use of such ought to be "audited" more frequently or more effectively. As far as "wide scale use of facial recognition software and constant surveillance" is concerned, I agree that the limitations of these ought to be defined in such a way that the surveillance isn't constant and perpetual. With surveillance cameras, cameras at stoplights, drone technology, front facing cameras, and the myriad of other photo/video capturing devices surrounding us from the moment we wake up to the moment we go to sleep and beyond, the idea of "surveillance" isn't one to be considered lightly.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I can see many issues with facial recognition, since many people look alike or look different with changes in lighting or angles. With innaccurate information, this could lead to false accusations or unhelpful results. However, facial recognition can be beneficial in protecting against crime. Continuously using facial recognition software seems like a waste of resources to me. I believe it should be applied to footage that has possible links to a crime or offense. Using facial recognition to prevent identity theft also seems beneficial. We should use the resources we have to try to prevent crimes, but not go so far that we're just recording everyone's moves.
ReplyDeleteWow, the concept of facial scanning seems like it comes from some futuristic sci-fi movie. I definitely agree with you in that its uses should only be used in the cases of crime investigation. This sort of technology must be a dream come true for law enforcement; what an easy way to identify perpetrators. I think the face-scanning technology can be tremendously useful in that context. I am, however, troubled by the database's bias in that it is more likely to misidentify non-white ethnicities. If police are going to use facial scanning as a common means of identifying people, they need to work on perfecting the system's bias so that minority races aren't put at higher risk.
ReplyDeleteWhile facial scanning certainly has its place in investigations, I don't feel comfortable with the thought that any member of the law enforcement and/or government could potentially run my face through a database while I'm doing something so benign as shopping at the grocery store or taking my dog for a walk in the park. If our government is able to do that, I think we have become a nation controlled by its government rather than one that controls its government. That's not freedom; that's "Big Brother is watching you."
I think that facial recognition software is a great tool to assist in investigations and solve or prevent crimes. I believe that the use of such softwares by institutions such as the police and federal government safety programs should be sanctioned, with a few conditions. Any positive results found by these programs should always be rechecked by a trained analyst. Also, the information and data uncovered from these softwares must never be made available to the public, and are only to be used for criminal investigation. I think that the ability to solve and prevent crimes using this technological advance should override our privacy in public places where surveillance videos may be recorded.
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with the quote from Senator Al Franken that you have, where I recognize that facial recognition technology is a helpful tool in fighting crime, but I also recognize the potential risks to privacy inherent to it, therefore it should be something that is carefully monitored and transparent. The emphasis should be on past offenders and not on innocent civilians, it should collect data from a diverse sample group into order to prevent false positives and misreadings, and I believe that this information should be available to the public in the form of some sort of online database in order to promote transparency between the law enforcement agencies collecting this information and the public they are collecting it from.
ReplyDeleteLike Christian, I agree with Senator Franken. I have no issue with the use of facial recognition as an investigative tool, but I recognize that there are potential privacy concerns. As you mentioned in your post, this technology could be used to identify protesters, which in turn discourages free speech. I agree with many of the previous comments: while a useful technology, I still believe that it should only be used in cases where there is probable cause, as with any invasion of privacy.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I believe that this information should be used only in cases of emergency or identity fraud. Senator Aken is completely correct in his stance, and I believe that we should make sure that the technology is completely accurate and reliable. If there are inaccuracies, they need to be rectified. Additionally, I believe the public should be allowed insight into the facial recognition process. I believe I am accurate in saying - after viewing other comments - that most - if not all - of us were unaware of Sandy, Utah containing facial recognition technology. The process should be further publicized so that we are aware of how our pictures could be used if an emergency occurred. Additionally, oversight must be imperative. Auditing should occur so that the access to facial recognition is not abused.
ReplyDeleteFinally, regarding our constitutional rights, if the Supreme Court does determine that facial recognition classifies as "search" in the future, the process will adapt from there; however, I believe this process can prove very useful for security purposes if used correctly.
I don't really see a harm in facial recognition technology and the databases that they hold. I think that as long as the information collected is stored in such a way that keeps it private and confidential, I don't see a reason why not. I think that as long as the facial recognition places, such as the one in Sandy, are constantly improving their false positive rate, and are constantly "training" the system to be better with facial recognition, I don't see a problem with this technology. However, if the information collected is stored in a way that does not provide confidentiality or privacy, then I don't think that these databases should exist.
ReplyDeleteI believe that facial recognition technology will be a great tool to help solve crimes. I do believe that it does need to be regulated and that those regulations do need to be followed so that the process is transparent and the organizations that the public is aware and understands how it is being used. I also believe that it should only be used when there is "probable cause," and not on everyone at all times in order to protect privacy rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree that facial recognition is a useful tool in criminal investigations. However, I believe that technology should be used only when it is more efficient, unbiased, and accurate than a human would be. If the technology can override any human flaws in a system or process, it can be a useful alternative. Facial recognition technology is racially biased. I think that is unacceptable, because law enforcement could claim the technology is more accurate, but this bias is present in the technology and presumably eyewitnesses and law enforcement. Also, a person must make the final decision on which match is most accurate. Maybe a way to make facial recognition more reliable is to remove the human bias.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the general consensus that facial recognition is a useful tool in criminal investigations. With limits and regulations in place for when it can be accessed and as long as there is human oversight I don't think there is a problem with its use. I think what most needs to be watched is groups pushing to use it for more and more varied reasons to the point where it could be used for the recognition and surveillance of protest leaders and lead to social control.
ReplyDelete