In the rapid evolution of technology, Facial Recognition has emerged as an omnipresent tool, seamlessly integrated into everyday activities such as unlocking a cellphone or permitting digital purchases. Beyond common conveniences, the technology is widely used for access, security, and surveillance purposes, most notably by law enforcement agencies. Concerns surrounding the ethical and legal implications of its use have become widespread, with some cities such as San Francisco banning the technology. How does it work, what are its limitations, and why is it so controversial?
How does Facial Recognition Technology Work?
Facial recognition technology (FRT) uses artificial intelligence to identify and verify an individual’s identity by analyzing and comparing patterns in facial features. Algorithms are used to map and analyze specific facial characteristics, such as the contour of a face, the shape of a nose, or the distance between the eyes. The technology's widespread use has raised concerns about accuracy, privacy, and potential biases.
Limitations of Facial Recognition Technology
Privacy & Security Issues
- Data Breaches: FRT captures biometric scans of an individual’s face and compares them to a database of facial images in order to identify an individual. A significant concern is the lack of transparency and regulation regarding data collection, management, and deletion of these databases. Given the sensitive, personally identifiable data stored, these databases are always at risk of hacking or unauthorized access, and unlike most types of data or information, facial images cannot be encrypted.
- Cameras and other video recording devices have become abundant on highways, street corners, in buildings, and in other places. The likelihood of your face being captured is almost unavoidable, and once captured, any control over the data is either difficult or impossible if the individual remains unaware. It is therefore crucial that these databases be heavily secured and regulated by law to further protect individuals from impersonation, identity theft, and other harm that can result from a data breach.
- Lack of Consent: A key concern of FRT is the invasion of privacy. Its basic collection of biometrics for analysis is widely done without the consent of the individual. Several states have existing privacy laws that either outright prohibit companies from collecting biometric information, for example, New York State, or require consent from the individual. These laws also typically require the individual to be notified how their biometrics will be used, stored, and the term of biometric data storing. However, real-time surveillance and other event security monitoring utilize biometric data collection without the individual's consent.
Technical Limitations
- Bias: Studies have shown that FRT is prone to misidentify women, African Americans, and other people of color more often than white males. In a study conducted by the FBI, in the three algorithms tested, African Americans were more likely to be misidentified, and females were similarly less likely to be successfully identified compared to males. This is partly due to the unequal representation of demographic data available in these databases. Consequently, many experts support the use of FRT when it is used with other metrics of identity verification.
FRT in the Criminal Context
Law enforcement agencies routinely use FRT to identify and locate suspects in criminal investigations, missing persons and cold case investigations, and for real-time surveillance. In criminal cases, the prosecution may rely on facial recognition evidence to establish the identity of a suspect or tie an individual to a specific location or event. Facial recognition may also be used to corroborate witness testimony.
The potential for misidentification apparent in FRT presents serious consequences in the criminal context. Erroneous identification in these cases can lead to false arrests or detentions, wrongful convictions, a rise in existing biases, erosion of public trust, and misallocation of law enforcement resources.
Many legal institutions, such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), have drafted strong resolutions calling for regulation and other measures to protect civil liberties in the use of FRT.
The proliferation of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) has undeniably revolutionized various aspects of our lives, from daily conveniences to law enforcement practices. However, as this technology becomes more ingrained in society, the ethical and legal concerns surrounding its application cannot be ignored. The issues of accuracy, privacy, and biases, coupled with the potential for data breaches and the lack of consent in biometric data collection, highlight the need for comprehensive regulation. The technical limitations, particularly the demonstrated biases in FRT, emphasize the importance of using this technology judiciously and in conjunction with other identity verification metrics. In the criminal context, where FRT is extensively employed, the risk of misidentification poses profound consequences, including false arrests and the erosion of public trust. Legal institutions, such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, advocate for stringent regulations to safeguard civil liberties in the deployment of FRT. Striking a balance between technological advancement and the protection of individual rights remains a critical challenge as society grapples with the implications of this powerful tool.
