Facial recognition: a step forward for security or danger?

Facial recognition technology has been significantly developed and used over the past few years. From the unlocking of phones to being used as patient identification at hospitals, this technology has advanced massively, facilitated by the progress of artificial intelligence. Facial recognition allows you to confirm an individual’s identity with a digital image, which can be used in different sectors such as law enforcement, retail, and transport. There are many benefits from facial recognition, as it can improve medical treatment, strengthen security measures, and protect citizens and businesses. Therefore, the technology has been used by law enforcement and governments to speed up processes; however, there has been criticism about the new technology. Critics suggest that the software can be a threat to society and that government and policing agencies should be restricted in using the technology. Facial recognition technology has ignited a debate on the importance of individual privacy rights and other data concerns against improved safety in society.

Face recognition provides a range of benefits for law enforcement and security. The technology allows law enforcement agencies to help solve crimes, speeding up investigations as they can identify criminals and perpetrators with facial recognition. In addition, it facilitates finding missing people and preventing crimes. During the January 6th insurrection, law enforcement was able to find individuals that were present through facial recognition software. In addition, studies have shown that the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement in the United States has contributed to reductions in violent crimes. Therefore, there are many calls for the technology to be implemented, with facial recognition being used and developed in many countries, such as the UK and Australia.

However, there have been many concerns raised about the use of facial recognition technology by security authorities. Primarily, many scholars and professionals highlight privacy issues with the technology. It allows constant surveillance, with people being tracked often without their knowledge or consent. In addition, in the case of a data breach, information from facial recognition could be a risk to citizens. Governments and institutions have responded to this threat, with the EU’s draft Artificial Intelligence Act suggesting the restriction of public use of facial recognition technology. The European Parliament called for a ban on the technology, while the Australian government has suppressed facial recognition companies. The German Data Protection Conference recently issued a statement to warn against using facial recognition technology in public surveillance, as they say that it weakens fundamental human rights and personal freedom.

An important issue that is often discussed is the racial bias that follows facial recognition technology. Studies have shown that the use of the technology by police agencies has led to an increased racial disparity in arrests, with more black arrest rates and a decrease in white arrest rates. This can be due to many factors, including the technology being instructed on large datasets that lack diversity, resulting in lower accuracy in identifying people of color. There are also higher rates of false positives with darker skin tones and overpolicing in minority communities.

Importantly, it is a considerable risk to have these databases in the case of an authoritarian leadership. Leaders of repressive states can use the technology to monitor their populations and keep control of society. This leads to countries becoming surveillance states where the citizens are constantly subjugated by the technology. This can be observed in China, where the government registers almost every single citizen in the country. Facial recognition has allowed the state to control its citizens through public shaming and other methods. Similarly, it has been reported that Russia has used facial recognition in court to identify Kremlin's opponents. With 3000 cameras in Moscow connected to the facial recognition system, law enforcement has used the technology to prevent people from taking part in anti-government demonstrations, stopping protests around the city. This shows the threats of facial recognition when used by authoritarian governments and used as public surveillance.

This shows the debate behind the full implementation of facial recognition technology. Although it could help police agencies to solve crimes, there are difficulties with its use. It is argued that the risks with the software do not outweigh the rewards, as decreasing crime benefits society and improves the security of all citizens. However, critics claim that the issues with it and lack of transparency need to be considered with calls to control the development of the technology. Experts suggest governance and regulations of the software could allow for law enforcement to use the technology, but under supervision and with accountability mechanisms to enforce that it does not become a concern for the citizens. The technology can be incredibly useful, and with data protection impact assessments, human rights impact assessments, and increased transparency and regulation, the software could be implemented safely by law enforcement.