Facial Recognition and Privacy Rights

Abstract

Biometric facial recognition is one of the most rapidly developing methods of biometric identification, with expanding applications across law enforcement, government and the private sector. Its capacity for integration with other technologies, such as closed circuit television (CCTV) and social media, differentiate it from DNA and fingerprint biometric identification. This chapter commences with a discussion of the technique of facial recognition and applications in identity verification, public surveillance, and the identification of unknown suspects. Its relative advantages and disadvantages, and the development of facial recognition around the world is explored. The discussion then examines how facial recognition databases developed from existing databases, such as driver’s licence photographs, can be integrated with CCTV systems, and most recently, with photographs from social media and the internet. The chapter then considers relevant ethical principles, including privacy, autonomy, security and public safety, and the implications for law and regulation in relation to facial recognition.

Case Study: Code of Ethics for Facial Recognition Technology

“…This can cause FRT to be used in an unethical manner and infringe on people's privacy. An example of this is when China implemented a mass surveillance system to target ethnic monitories [4,5]. This usage is unethical and should be prevented.…”

“…However, the use of FRT for surveillance isn't always unethical, for example when it's used to track down terrorists. This presents the issue of determining when using FRT with surveillance is ethical [4,6]. The use of FRT for surveillance, without sufficient justification, is another significant issue that needs to be prevented.…”

“…People have the right to be free from undue surveillance, however, how can we determine when surveillance is excessive or disproportionate. This is considered in [4] which explains that using FRT to track down a terrorist can be ethically justified. However, using FRT to track down a petty thief is not ethically justified.…”

“…However, using FRT to track down a petty thief is not ethically justified. Hence, to determine what is considered undue surveillance, and what is ethical, it is proposed that the principles of necessity and proportionality are used [4,7]. These principles relate to determining whether FRT is needed, or whether less invasive methods would suffice and whether the use of FRT is a proportionate response [4].…”

“…Hence, to determine what is considered undue surveillance, and what is ethical, it is proposed that the principles of necessity and proportionality are used [4,7]. These principles relate to determining whether FRT is needed, or whether less invasive methods would suffice and whether the use of FRT is a proportionate response [4]. From this, we can conclude that the principles of necessity and proportionality help to ensure people's rights aren't unjustly violated.…”