Facial recognition
30
Moving too quickly risks damaging
trust not only in the technology,
but in the fundamental model of
policing by consent
www.criticalcomms.com March 2020
despite these new limits, he expected the technology to
survive scattered bans by state and local governments. He
says: “The technology’s already been developed, it’s already
being deployed for a range of different use-cases. It’ll
continue, definitely.”
One reason why facial recognition might have attracted
such controversy is because it is easier for data to be covertly
collected compared with other types of biometric data.
Forrester agrees with this hypothesis. He explains: “It’s noninvasive.
In the case of fingerprints, you need to physically
present your hand or finger to a sensor to collect that data,
whereas facial ID data just needs a camera and then it can
start collecting images of people without any consent at all.”
In December, cyber-security firm Comparitech published
a study looking at how extensively and invasively biometric
ID and surveillance systems are being deployed. It ranked
50 countries and found China uses facial recognition
technologies more extensively than any other country
surveyed, including the introduction of a new facial
recognition check for anyone getting a new mobile phone
number. It also found China does not have “a specific law to
protect citizens’ biometrics”.
What facial recognition technology should be used for
clearly varies across borders, yet not all perceptions of facial
recognition are negative. Maxim explains: “Fingerprints
are, for a lot of people, very closely affiliated with criminal
activity in a sense that when people are arrested on TV or
in movies, they are usually fingerprinted. And that
fingerprint goes into the criminal record. So if an
organisation is asking for your fingerprint, people often have
a negative opinion because they think of it as a technology
that’s used more for a criminal scenario. Facial recognition
doesn’t have that stigma attached to it. That stigma might
be unfounded, but it does persist. That also has influenced
consumers’ perception and willingness to have their
fingerprints collected.”
Optimistic caution
New technologies are never perfect. That is why initial
implementations should tread cautiously, using the
information provided as a guide, not an instruction. There is
no evidence that facial recognition is yet being used in any
other way than that.
More work is needed to improve the accuracy of the
algorithms, and gender or racial biases must be taken into
account. Law enforcement agencies should be as transparent
as possible, to help reassure citizens that this technology
is being used carefully and proportionally. Fingerprints
have been vital in law enforcement activities, and citizens
now expect these to be collected. Facial recognition, as just
another type of biometric data, could eventually be thought
of in the same vein, if the information is taken at face value
– something that is informative but imperfect. Research
and development will help improve that accuracy, we aren’t
quite there yet.
Adobe Stock/alice_photo
/www.criticalcomms.com