As San
Francisco moves to regulate the use of facial recognition systems, we reflect
on some of the many ‘faces’ of the fast-growing technology
Last week, San Francisco became the first
city in the United States to ban the use of facial recognition technology, at
least by law enforcement, local agencies, and the city’s transport authority.
My immediate reaction to the headlines was that this was great for individuals’
privacy, a truly bold decision by the San Francisco board of supervisors.
The ordinance actually covers more than just facial
recognition, as it states the following: “’Surveillance Technology’ means
any software, electronic device, system utilizing an electronic device, or
similar device used, designed, or primarily intended to collect, retain,
process, or share audio, electronic, visual, location, thermal, biometric,
olfactory or similar information specifically associated with, or capable of
being associated with, any individual or group.”.
The ban excludes San Francisco’s airport and
sea port as these are operated by federal agencies. Nor does it mean that no
individual, company or other organizations installing surveillance systems that
include facial recognition, and the agencies banned from using the technology,
can cooperate with the people allowed to use it. For example, a video captured
on a home security system can be used by law enforcement to assist in a
criminal case.
One of the objections to facial recognition
is that the technology has proved inaccurate, specifically when recognizing
people of color and women. There could be many reasons for this, but one
possible reason could be that the datasets used to train the software are not
representative of those specific groups. As with all emerging technologies,
they improve over time and as more data is captured and new technology is
developed then these issues will be addressed and the accuracy will prevail.
Taking action to protect the privacy of
individuals is clearly a step in the right direction. This particular ordinance
caught my attention because, being British, I have witnessed the
oversurveillance culture where you can’t walk on any street or drive on any
road without being captured on numerous surveillance systems.
But, when reflecting on this ban and now
being a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, I find myself considering
whether law enforcement should have all the tools necessary to proactively
protect the public. If there are people on watch lists and such like, then
maybe I want law enforcement to know where they are.
There are many uses for facial recognition.
Many smart phones use the technology as authentication to unlock, social media
use it to tag photos, and a California-based company called Cubic Corporation
that develops the ticketing system for London’s Underground is now exploring whether facial
recognition could be used to validate your journey.
One outstanding example of law enforcement
using facial recognition was demonstrated in India when New Delhi’s police force identified 3,000 missing children
within just four days of a trial launch. The technology was used on 45,000
children throughout the city and it identified 2,930 of them as having been
recorded as missing.
Less congestion on transport, reuniting
missing children with parents and equipping law enforcement with the best
technology to keep the public safe are all positive uses of the technology. It
would seem apparent that the issue is not the use of surveillance technology, but
the potential for it to be misused.
For those of you wanting to take proactive
steps to protect your identity from facial recognition systems, a pair of invisibility glasses could be the answer.