Police use of facial recognition technology: The potential for engaging the public through co-constructed policy-making

Abstract

In the face of rapid technological development of investigative technologies, broader and more meaningful public engagement in policy-making is paramount. In this article, we identify police procurement and use of facial recognition technology (FRT) as a key example of the need for public input to avoid undermining trust in law enforcement. Specifically, public engagement should be incorporated into police decisions regarding the acquisition, use, and assessment of the effectiveness of FRT, via an oversight framework that incorporates citizen stakeholders. Genuine public engagement requires sufficient and accurate information to be openly available at the outset, and the public must be able to dialogue and discuss their perspectives and ideas with others. The approach outlined in this article could serve as a model for addressing policy development barriers that often arise in relation to privacy invasive technologies and their uses by police.

Perceptions of police use of surveillance cameras in Ghana; does procedural justice matter?

“…Quite recently, there is growing attention on evidence-based policing, and this has led to continuous evaluation of policing strategies and tactics that ensure optimum citizen safety (Manning et al , 2013). Touted as proactive policing, the effectiveness of surveillance cameras in deterring crime and providing leads to suspect apprehension becomes contentious unless their use is generally accepted as legitimate by the public (Hill et al , 2022). This research delivers academic and practitioner relevance as it corroborates the effect between POP-S, POP-L, procedural justice and community well-being.…”

Finding a Broadly Practical Approach for Regulating the Use of Facial Recognition by Law Enforcement

“…provide the foundation for more-substantial community support. Given that the potential effects of police FR use on the broader public and society are the central drivers of opposition to these technologies, direct involvement of the public in deciding what uses are and are not acceptable-and in the construction of the policy, management, legal, and incentive frameworks to support those decisions-seem critical to building a sustainable path forward (see Hill, O'Conner, and Slane, 2022). As much as this report is intended to guide policymakers, the concepts just listed and others covered in this report can be used by community members to ensure that their local FR policy is in line with their expectations.…”

Person of Interest as Media Technology of Surveillance: A Cautionary Tale for the Future of the National Security State With Diegetic Big Data Surveillance, Algorithmic Security, and Artificial Intelligence

“…As featured, the seemingly intimate representation of algorithmic surveillance, the proposed opening of the notorious AI black box, remains incomplete. In the end, notwithstanding the critical intention of its author, POI reproduces what boyd and Crawford (2012) identify as the “mythology of big data” and participates in the normalization of surveillance practices (such as facial recognition technology; Andrejevic and Volcic 2021; Gates 2002; Hill et al 2022). For boyd and Crawford, big data is as much new technologies (more powerful computing) and new methods of analysis (pattern recognition and anomaly detection) as it is a “mythology: the widespread belief that large data sets offer a higher form of intelligence and knowledge that can generate insights that were previously impossible, with the aura of truth, objectivity, and accuracy” (p. 663).…”