FB pixel

Police use of facial recognition continues to raise public concerns

Police forces think it’s good, privacy advocates think it’s bad, others say let tests decide
Police use of facial recognition continues to raise public concerns
 

Should police use facial recognition technology? Two-thirds of Milwaukee’s Common Council says no. An article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel says 11 of 15 alderpersons signed a letter opposing use of the facial recognition technology by the Milwaukee Police Department, citing concerns about bias and potential overreach.

Milwaukee police currently don’t have a facial recognition system – but they want one, and have tested the technology. They say it makes solving crimes faster, and “can be done with the appropriate parameters in place to ensure that the use will not violate individual civil rights.” They say it would not be, and had never been, used as exclusively as probable cause to arrest someone. They have pledged to engage in public consultation as part of any formal acquisition process.

Nonetheless, the Common Council’s letter, written “in strong opposition to the deployment of facial recognition technology by the Milwaukee Police Department,” says that “while we understand the desire to enhance public safety and the promises people have made for this emerging technology, we believe these benefits are significantly outweighed by the risks.”

The letter names potential overreach by the administration of President Donald Trump as a risk factor, as well as studies showing that the majority of facial recognition algorithms are more likely to misidentify people with darker skin, women and the elderly (though the most accurate algorithms show very low differentials in testing by the National Institute of Standards and Technology).

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin has asked the Milwaukee Common Council to adopt a two-year pause on any new surveillance technology across city services, including police.

There is also activity on facial recognition further south. New Orleans is debating concerns Project NOLA, a local nonprofit that manages a nationwide crime camera network for police. A hearing is set to determine whether Project NOLA’s decentralized facial recognition integration should be banned, regulated or brought under New Orleans’ municipal authority.

Police are continuing to use Project NOLA, but have paused the receipt of real-time, AI-generated facial recognition alerts.

Idemia wants dialogue and testing on FRT, Biometrics Institute wants consistency

Idemia Public Security has released a position paper on facial recognition for law enforcement. The document includes summaries, best practices and how it defines fairness. For Idemia, the proof is in the pudding: “fairness is provided by design in Idemia Public Security’s identification algorithms, as has been demonstrated by independent public evaluation of their performance by NIST.”

Idemia’s overall takeaway is that, “by focusing on factual and constructive dialogue, we can ensure that FRT applications are developed and implemented responsibly.”

Also taking a position on facial recognition and law enforcement is the Biometrics Institute. A press release from the organization summarizes a recent conversation that brought together members, policymakers, and industry experts to address the mounting concerns surrounding FRT, and particularly live facial recognition in public spaces such as retail environments and live events.

Topics addressed include “the complexities of obtaining informed consent in publicly accessible spaces, where continuous monitoring raises significant privacy concerns,” as well as “the lack of mandatory independent testing, not only of the technical accuracy of FR systems but also of the surrounding infrastructure and policies.”

Isabelle Moeller, CEO of the Biometrics Institute, says “we need firm guidance on how to achieve a successful and positive implementation that will stand up to third party scrutiny. What should a Privacy Impact Assessment for FRT use in publicly accessible spaces look like to meet regulatory challenges? When is the use proportionate and how do you explain to citizens how their data is managed?”

Related Posts

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Biometrics providers and systems evolve or get left behind

Biometrics are allowing people to prove who they are, speeding journeys through airports, and enabling anonymous online proof of age,…

 

Findynet funding development of six digital wallet solutions

Finnish public-private cooperative Findynet has announced it will award 60,000 euros (US$69,200) to six digital wallet vendors to help translate…

 

Patchwork of age check, online safety legislation grows across US

As the U.S. waits for the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Texas case of Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition, which…

 

AVPA laud findings from age assurance tech trial

The Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA), and several of its members, have welcomed the publication of preliminary findings from the…

 

Sri Lanka to launch govt API policies and guidelines

Sri Lanka’s government, in the wake of its digital economy drive, is gearing up to release application programming interface (API)…

 

Netherlands’ asylum seeker ID cards from Idemia use vertical ICAO format

The Netherlands will introduce new identity documents for asylum seekers Idemia Smart Identity, compliant with the ICAO specification for vertical…

Comments

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Biometric Market Analysis

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events