Summary of United
States Government Accountability Office’s: “Face Recognition Technology”
The FBI’s Facial Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation (FACE) department
has access to the Next Generation Identification-Interstate Photo System
(NGI-IPS), Department of State’s Facial Recognition on Demand, Department of
Defense’s Automated Biometric Identification System and 16 state face
recognition systems.
The FBI’s NGI-IPS stores about 30 million photos
(mugshots and photos submitted for licensing, immigration, volunteering,
security clearance, and military service) from across the nation. Fingerprints
are stored in the database as well, and linked to the image(s) of an
individual, marking their unique identity. These are referred to as “known
persons.” In the event of a criminal investigation, agencies may submit a photo
of an unknown person to the database. Images captured through video
surveillance may be submitted. Once a photo is submitted, the database provides
2 - 50 “candidates” or potential matches. There is then a manual process to
determine which identity is the match.
The FBI and some state law enforcement agencies have
access to NGI-IPS. Law enforcement agencies may submit photos of incarcerated individuals
to the system for storage and later searches. Law enforcement agencies may also
request that images be removed from the database. Individuals may have the
images expunged (along with their criminal records) depending on the
circumstances and the state which submitted their information. The FBI claims
that civilian photos are stored but not used in criminal searches unless those
images have been previously connected to a criminal identity. Some states have
access to search NGI-IPS and some do not. The FBI is still navigating the
relationship between state law enforcement agencies and NGI-IPS. Utah submits
driver’s license photos, mugshot photos, and correction photos to the database.
Two important laws concerning facial recognition are the Privacy Act of 1974
and the privacy provisions E-Government Act of
2002. The Privacy Act concerns existing technology and the E-Government Act
of 2002 provisions concern future or updated technology. The Department of
Justice’s policy is to follow the Fair
Information Practice Principles which is meant to consider a balance
between personal privacy and public interest.
Problems
the GAO Report Found Concerning the FBI’s Use of Facial Recognition Technology
Transparency
The FBI lied about how long they were using the FACE
program and the NGI-IPS system. In discord with the E-Government Act of 2002,
the FBI did not publish privacy impact assessments (PIA)
before the database was implemented or update information and PIA’s as new
developments in the software occurred. The FBI collected, stored, and used
information without explaining to the public what was being stored and how it
was being used. Updates to the system were not announced in a timely manner in
violation of the Privacy Act of 1974.
Access
The
FACE services PIA states that photos in the database capture activities,
dates, times, and identifying information. The GAO report urges the FBI to
conduct more audits into how people with access use facial recognition
services.
Accuracy
The FBI conducted tests on the NGI-IPS system, but they
did not release the results on inaccurate conclusions and only tested for
candidate lists of 50, even though people searching the database can search
lists of 2 – 50 candidates. The FBI claimed the detection rate is 84%, but this
is primarily based on the 50 candidate list search. The false positive rates
(when the system positively matched an image with the wrong identity) were not
released, which leads to questions about the true efficacy of the system. The
FBI also did not test the accuracy of facial recognition systems external to
the agency which they access (these include civilian photos).
Benefits of Facial Recognition
Systems
Eyewitness line-ups can be biased or inaccurate,
resulting in wrongful convictions. According to an article
in Forensic Magazine, facial
recognition “allows people to be identified, even when it is not possible to
take fingerprints for physical or legal reasons” and “the workload involved in
the verification process is reduced and the efficiency and accuracy of the
process increases.” Access to vast facial recognition databases has resulted in
quicker identification of suspects. Facial recognition can also be used for
prevention by recognizing whether a person is on a sex offender, watch list,
etc.
Should Utah Law
Enforcement Use Facial Recognition?
Facial recognition technology is unregulated which results
in misconduct,
confusion, and fear. I don’t believe that Utah law enforcement should use
facial recognition technologies until there are more regulations and these
regulations are strictly followed. The public is not given information about
what is being collected and who it is being collected from. The technology itself
doesn’t have to comply to a set standard of detection because no one is
enforcing they do so. Tests on accuracy of varying list sizes and how race
affects results have not been realized. The risks seem to outweigh the rewards.
I find it rather interesting how many different sci-fi/dystopian stories are out there that involve societies where everyone is under constant surveillance. I think this points to the fact that many people do not like the idea of being constantly monitored. I don't think that continuous surveillance is a good idea. However, I do think that surveillance and facial recognition do have their uses. I think that in the case of a serious emergency where the public as a whole is in danger, surveillance could be used to catch dangerous criminals more quickly than other means. I think that facial recognition can be used for good, but it needs to be strictly regulated to prevent abuse of the technology and serious damage to people's privacy.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's very interesting that many science fiction stories revolve around the idea that someone is watching you. The fear in that situation is the knowledge that someone could see anything you do at any time so you start to regulate your behavior as if you were being watched every second. What type of society does this create? I can see the benefits of facial recognition. In a world where technology is evolving so at such a fast pace, we need to continue to upgrade our security as a country. The possibility of locating someone that is threatening the public is indeed a great tool that could save many lives. I do have a problem with knowing a government agency hasn't always been truthful with the public about how they use the data they collect and how long they have been collecting it. I think if the purpose of facial recognition is really to aid law enforcement when pursuing a criminal they need to be honest with us or it just creates confusion and fear.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this facial recognition technology should be more regulated to prevent its abuse. It can be a useful tool that can do a lot of good, but if law enforcement agencies haven't been honest with the public about what information is being collected and the ways this information is used, then how do we trust that it is not being abused?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. While facial recognition is a really cool piece of technology that has the potential to help, it seems like it is not yet good enough to be used in law enforcement. I also found it interesting that the state has pictures of civilians, even if they weren't involved in criminal activity. It makes me question what information they know about me. How do we make sure that the technology is being used correctly and by what regulations it is being held under. There are many questions still lingering with facial recognition so that is why I don't think it should be used in law enforcement just yet.
ReplyDeleteWhat stands out to me is that the cop is still the one making the identification. The software just comes up with similar photos, and then the officer chooses the closest match. This is a danger zone for bias, as you could easily be identified incorrectly simply because you bear a resemblance to someone else. We have identification for a reason, and I don't see that this version of identification is better than the one already in place. It seems like the police have been given a tool that they have no idea how to wield, and they haven't learned to use it effectively yet.
ReplyDeleteI'm right there with you. I think that it is interesting that the officer is still making the identification. This facial recognition system is more of just an augmented officer, rather than a form of mass surveillance. I think that it is interesting that people get so scared by this system, but the FBI is gathering just as much information as large corporations do about you. They also just gather the information from more cooperative sources, like state governments, in the example of Utah. Would you rather they get their information about your face from your Facebook profile picture? I think that the current system, yes, probably needs some improvements, but not a total reconstruction.
DeleteBarring a wild shift in our society's ideas about privacy, facial recognition software, especially in use by the government is just going to become more and more common. I think you make a good point that we really don't know how accurate the current technology is and it still requires a lot of human intervention (the final face picking) which adds to the unreliability. All we can do for now is ensure that facial recognition software is not used without other checks and research. Once we are sure that the technology is sound and can act without human bias, then we can start considering the ethics and how we want to regulate its use.
ReplyDelete