Fleming 1
Leah Fleming
Dr. Harrow
WIFYS 106 02
3 Dec. 2015
Facial Recognition Technology: When Privacy is No Longer a Possibility
We’ve all been asked that question as a child: what do we want to be when we grow up?
It’s typical for kids to want to make a difference in the world as doctors, nurses, fire fighters,
veterinarians, teachers, or astronauts. Sometimes children want to have powers like those of their
favorite superhero, or extreme skills and capabilities of a ninja. The occupations that I often
wanted as a child changed frequently according to what friends I had, how old I was, or what TV
shows I watched. However, I distinctly remember that at one point in my childhood I had wanted
to be a spy. Having watched the “Spy Kids” movies and having seen all the gadgets and
futuristic devices that the spies used in their missions, I wrote on my wish list that I wanted a spy
kit for Christmas. I wanted to be able to walk in the dark using night vision goggles, send secret
messages through walkie talkies, and record the conversations of my parents and siblings without
them knowing. However, today’s spy gadgets can be used for more dreadful consequences, such
as stalking, giving exposure to an individual’s Facebook profile, personal information, and even
a prediction of their social security number.
Google’s new invention, the “Google Glass Headset,” uses facial recognition technology
and an app called “Name Tag,” to allow users to identify unfamiliar people in open areas by
looking up their social media profile (Dormehl 22). Although this technology is not available to
the public, Dr. Joseph Atick, one of the main contributors to the invention of facial recognition
technology, is troubled that his invention may lead to misconduct and offensive behavior, such as
Fleming 2
stalking (Singer 1). Additionally, while facial recognition is not extensively used by the public,
experts predict that its use will be prevalent in the near future, which raises major concerns over
the privacy of Americans. Thus, it is necessary that regulations and policies are established so
that the potential for societal misconduct caused by facial recognition technology can be avoided,
and that the privacy of all Americans is protected.
How Facial Recognition Technologies Operate. Facial recognition technology is extremely
simple to use, and is also relatively cheap. First, a photo of an individual must be obtained either
by using a common video camera, digital camera, or cell phone camera. After a picture is taken,
facial recognition software creates a facial map that contains data about the individual’s facial
features. For example, the distance between a person’s eyes and ears, or the length of their nose
can be used to create this facial map, or “faceprint” (Adams). This faceprint is then run through a
facial recognition software or biometric database which uses an algorithm to match that facial
print to photos that are online or in a database (Sobel 1C). This creates an avenue for these facial
recognition users to uncover data and personal information about their persons of interest, for
example their name, address, phone number, etc (see figure 1).
Valuable Applications of Facial Recognition. Although the use of facial recognition technology
can easily be abused and can lead to dreadful consequences, facial recognition technology also
generates several benefits. Instead of typing in pins and passcodes to unlock a phone or use an
ATM, an individual may be able to take a selfie to unlock their phone, or be recognized by facial
recognition software instead of using a pin (Dormehl 22). Facebook, a social networking
website, has one of the largest biometric databases that uses facial recognition software to
automatically identify a friends in a user’s photo. Two hundred and fifty billion photos have
already been uploaded to Facebook, with three hundred and fifty million additional photos
Fleming 3
uploaded every day (Sobel 1C). However, I find it quite concerning that Facebook possesses a
software that is more accurate than that of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Facebook’s facial
recognition software known as “DeepFace” has an accuracy rate of 97.25 percent, while the
database used by the FBI is merely 85 percent accurate (Sobel 1C).
Commercial businesses are also starting to use facial recognition as a form of
advertisement. For example, in the movie “Minority Report,” Tom Cruise walks through a
shopping mall where cameras and facial recognition technology identify his character in order to
display holographic advertisements that are personalized according to his interests (Dormehl 22).
Of course, this kind of advanced technology is not yet reality, however it very well may be in the
near future due to the advancements of facial recognition. Several commercial companies are
already experimenting with facial recognition and its ability to identify the age and gender of
customers so that personalized ads and deals can be displayed to prospective buyers (Dormehl
22). Dormehl, an author who focuses on technology, is certain that “although the use of facial
recognition tools is still relatively new in the consumer sector, that is where much of the visible
innovation will take place over the coming years” (22). If facial recognition’s use becomes more
prevalent in the commercial sector, its use will also become more common in the government
and private sector as well.
In addition to the use of facial recognition in the commercial sphere and on social media
sites, facial recognition is widely used in governmental and law enforcement agencies. Dr. Atick
stated that he assisted in the invention of facial recognition technology because he wanted to help
law enforcement track down criminals and prevent identity fraud (Singer 1). Identification
photos, such as a photo on a driver’s license, can be entered into a database in order to see if any
other individuals are using that photo as a form of identity theft (Jeffries). Facial recognition
Fleming 4
could also be used to identify suspects, or even terrorists (Dormehl 22). The Mobile Offender
Recognition and Information System, also known as “MORIS,” is a facial recognition software
that is used by law enforcement agencies “…to identify people through facial recognition
technology, iris scans, and fingerprints” (Lochner 202). Law enforcement officers use MORIS
by connecting the facial recognition program onto an iPhone, which allows them to search
biometric databases even when working outside of the office.
Facial Recognition’s Potential for Misuse. Even though facial recognition technology is not used
by the average person, three researchers showed the public how easily this technology can be
abused. In 2010 and 2011, Alessandro Acquisti, Ralph Gross, and Fred Stutzman from Carnie
Mellon University used facial recognition to identify users on a dating website in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. The researchers used facial recognition software and the users’ profile pictures
to match their facial features to photos they had uploaded to Facebook (Klarreich 18). These
three researchers conducted a second experiment in which they used an ordinary digital camera
and a standard facial recognition software to identify about a third of the students on Carnegie
Mellon University’s Campus (Champagne). Not only did they identify the college students, but
the researchers were able to find their Facebook profiles and 16 of their social security numbers
(Klarreich 18). Along with their research, the professors created an app through which a name
and prediction of a social security number could be exposed simply by using a picture that an
individual uploaded to the cloud (Klarreich 09). The fact that these professors used standard
technologies, such as an average facial recognition software and digital camera, to obtain
confidential information is entirely frightening.
With the invention and spread of facial recognition technology, there is no doubt that
privacy and security concerns will surface due to its likelihood of exploitation. There are many
Fleming 5
factors that contribute to its misuse, the first being that an individual is not required to give
consent before becoming a victim of facial recognition technology. This occurs for many
reasons, the first being that this technology can be used on an individual from a distance
(Dormehl 22). Brian Martin, the director of biometric research at MorphoTrust USA, stated that
cameras are using higher resolutions which allows images to be clearer, and computers are able
process the images faster and more accurately (Spencer 1D). He argues that this is beneficial,
because facial recognition technologies are making fewer errors, however this also means that
those who inappropriately use facial recognition technology will be able to obtain pictures more
easily and receive more accurate results. Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of Georgetown
University’s center on privacy and technology, had to scroll through a long list of terms and
conditions that had been sent by email in order to discover Facebook’s policies on facial
recognition technology (Adams). Bedoya believes that this should not be the case, rather “‘facial
recognition is one of those categories of data where a very prominent and a very clear consent is
necessary” (Adams). Bedoya is not the only expert who feels this way. The U.S. National
Telecommunication and Information Administration brought in several privacy advocates in
order to negotiate terms and policies that would give Americans adequate protection from facial
recognition technology. However, before negotiations were met, the nine advocates walked out
of the meeting because they felt that “‘at a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a
public street without fear that companies they’ve never heard of are tracking their every
movement- and identifying them by name- using facial recognition technology” (“NTIA Talks
on Facial Recognition” 3). Jennifer Lynch, an attorney for the Electrical Frontier Foundation,
recognized that “it’s very rare for a fingerprint to be collected without your knowledge,” so why
would it be ok for an individual’s private information to be exposed, using facial recognition,
Fleming 6
without their knowledge (Adams)? Negotiations need to be made so that its use is not completely
eliminated, yet Americans can feel secure with the amount of privacy they have.
It is very convenient that facial recognition may eliminate the need for memorizing pin
codes and passwords by using facial recognition to perform a transaction on an ATM or to
unlock a cell phone. Passwords and pin codes are able to be hacked into, which is why facial
recognition is very secure when used for security purposes because facial features cannot be
easily altered (Sobel 1C). However, Friedersdorf claims that with the widespread use of facial
recognition technology, a functioning member of society would have to wear a mask if they
wanted to avoid facial recognition technology while continuing their daily routine (B). Jim
Spencer, a writer of the Star Tribune voiced that with the extensive use of facial recognition
technology, “… the concept of anonymity- being a mere face in the crowd- disintegrates” (1D).
It would be impossible for an individual to avoid being scanned by facial recognition technology
because it is a must for people to go about their daily activities and responsibilities (Lochner
218).
Law Enforcement’s Misuse of Facial Recognition Technology. It is also quite disturbing that
respected and dutiful law enforcement officials contribute significantly to the misuse of facial
recognition technology. As mentioned earlier, Joseph Atick is one of the main inventors who
contributed to the creation of facial recognition technology (Singer 1). Even he is concerned
about the methods in which facial recognition is used, for he had wanted this technology to aid in
finding criminals and preventing identity fraud, but he is fearful that commercial companies may
be acquiring facial data to give to the government without the consent of civilians (Singer 1). It is
true that facial recognition is being used as a way of preventing identity theft by using Id and
driver’s license photos, however, this often leads to large-scale surveillance of citizens (Jeffries).
Fleming 7
Jay Stanley, the senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, is riled that “‘…
some law enforcement agencies around the country turn the technology away from crime and
[are] using [it] to survey citizens’” (Jeffries). Policies that regulate facial recognition’s use will
help to alleviate its exploitation and use for the purpose of public surveillance.
As mentioned earlier, MORIS is a facial recognition software used by law enforcement
agencies, however, laws often do not regulate how facial recognition is used and there is no
federal law that regulates the use of MORIS; thus, its use is left to the discretion of each law
enforcement officer (Lochner 203-204). These officers are then able to store the personal
information of harmless citizens, without probable cause or suspicion, instead of identifying
criminals who are a danger to society (Lochner 224). Minnesota Senator Al Franken discovered
that the FBI was using facial recognition for identifying individuals who attended political rallies
and demonstrations rather than using their database strictly for criminals and terrorists (Spender
1D). Another example of the misuse of facial recognition by law enforcement agencies occurred
during Super Bowl XXV in 2001. Tampa police used a facial recognition device and software to
scan over the massive crowds in the stands and were able to identify fans and even some minor
offenders, all without their knowledge or consent (Singer 1). Even more terrifying is that “the
CEO of the vendor that supplies the government with facial-recognition technology once
bragged that his product has the capability to identify everyone in a football stadium in five
seconds” (Friedersdorf B). If advanced facial recognition technology is able to perform such a
complex and large-scale task within such a short amount of time, there is huge necessity for
concern.
Legality of Facial Recognition’s Use. Not only should ethics be discussed when it comes to
facial recognition technology, but the legality of its use should be addressed as well. Lochner
Fleming 8
summarizes that “the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from
unreasonable searches and seizures and requires probable cause before a judge can issue a
warrant” (209). This amendment was created in order to protect the privacy and dignity of one’s
own self. According to this amendment, taking a picture of an individual’s face is not a violation
because their face is out in the public, but regulations do restrict the photographer as to what can
be done with that photo (Lochner 231). However, no federal laws exist that limit or regulate the
use of facial recognition, which allows every individual to use their own ethics and morals to
decide how facial recognition technology is used (Singer 1). Nevertheless, “the [Supreme] court
did also hint that photographs revealing intimate details may be searches…” (Lochner 210). This
means that if using a facial map in order to expose personal information is considered as
“revealing intimate details,” then this practice is considered a search, and law enforcement would
be required to acquire consent, a warrant, or probable cause to use facial recognition on any
individual (Lochner 212). On the other hand, if facial recognition is not considered a search, then
anyone who goes out in public has the possibility of being scanned by facial recognition
technology (Lochner 218).
Bias as a Factor of Facial Recognition’s Use. The last major concern with the program MORIS
is that bias and human error may allow an individual to be wrongly identified. Because MORIS
narrows down the possible identities and does not provide an exact match of an individual to
their identity, a law enforcement officer is forced to make the final decision in choosing which
identity matches the individual’s facial features Due to a phenomenon known as the “other-race
effect,” where individuals of another race tend to look very similar than one’s own race, an
officer may easily choose the wrong identity and wrongly accuse an innocent civilian of a crime
(Lochner 219). Additionally, because the use of facial recognition is left up to an officer’s
Fleming 9
discretion, an officer may have bias towards a certain race and may be more likely to target
individuals of that race without probable cause (Lochner 218). Thus, not only should policies and
regulations be placed on facial recognition, but users should be educated on how to properly use
facial recognition technology as well.
Possible Solutions for Protecting Americans’ Privacy. It is essential to find the balance between
society’s use of facial recognition technology and the protection of American’s privacy by
asking if the use of facial recognition would be effective in increasing the well-being of society,
and if there is an even balance between the well-being of society and the privacy of Americans
(Friedersdorf B). Furthermore, despite that facial recognition technology does not yet play a key
role in society, the chancellor of the Texas State University System, Brian McCall, recognizes
that “‘legislation is seldom ahead of science, and in this case [he] felt it was absolutely necessary
that legislation get ahead of common practice, and in fact, [they] were concerned about how the
market would use personally identifiable information’” (Sobel 1C). In addition, these regulations
need to be put in place because Americans genuinely care about their privacy in relation to
personal information that is available online. For example, a study that was conducted by the
Allstate Insurance Company and the National Journal found that two-thirds of Americans feel as
if they have little to no control over the collection of their personal information, yet 89 percent of
Americans would support a law that would require Big Data companies, such as Facebook and
Google, to delete personal data if requested to do so (Price 913-914).
Privacy and public-policy manager Robert Sherman was quite certain that Facebook’s
use of facial recognition technology was rather obvious, however, Missouri state senator Al
Franken would blatantly disagree as he only discovered Facebook’s policies on facial recognition
after scrolling through six pages of Facebook’s terms and conditions (Champagne). Europe and
Fleming 10
Canada have already restricted Facebook’s tagging feature because of the privacy concerns, and
even Carl Szabo, the policy counsel for Big Data companies such as Facebook, Google, and
Yahoo, emphasized that the use and notices of facial recognition technology should be explicit
(Adams). Illinois requires that a Facebook user gives written consent before their tagging feature
is offered, however, regulations need to be placed at the federal level so that privacy policies can
be effective across the nation (Sobel 1C).
Dr. Atick also addresses regulations that should be enforced in relation to facial
recognition’s use in the commercial sphere. He suggests that commercial businesses place
notices and signs in areas where facial recognition technology is being used (Singer 1). He also
believes that a customer should be required to give consent, and the facial data that is collected is
simply used for the purpose that was consented by the customer (Singer 1). In 2001, Texas
established a law that would regulate commercial companies’ collection, storage, and use of
facial data (Sobel 1C). However, similar to the policies placed on Big Data companies, there is
no federal law that places restrictions on the commercial use of facial recognition technology.
Lastly, policies in relation to law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology are
lacking because the current self-regulatory model does not effectively protect Americans.
Policies should address the types of situations in which it is appropriate to use facial recognition
technology, and in what manners the facial data can be used and stored (Lochner 204). An
attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in California, Jennifer Lynch, believes that law
enforcement should have to obtain a warrant in order to collect facial data, and that the amount
of data collected should be limited in order to prevent the mass surveillance of Americans
(Champagne). Even if this policy wasn’t negotiated, the minimum requirement should be for an
officer to have probable cause or to suspect that an individual may be a criminal, in which case
Fleming 11
an officer should still be required to obtain consent. Additionally, officers should continue to use
facial recognition technology only in cases where an individual is a criminal, or does not have a
form of government- issued identification on their body (Lochner 230). In addressing the “other-
race effect,” law enforcement agencies need to require education so that officers are taught how
to compare facial features in photos, and how other-race bias may affect their decisions (Lochner
232). Additionally, in no circumstance should personal information be stored in a database that is
used for an officer’s personal use (Lochner 232).
Conclusion. In conclusion, although facial recognition technology is and will be beneficial in
several aspects of society, it raises major privacy concerns among experts and citizens alike. Any
individual who obtains facial recognition technology is able to identify an anonymous face using
social media profiles such as Facebook or LinkedIn. These social media profiles include personal
information about an individual including their date of birth, friends, and interests. This can also
lead to the exposure of more personal information such as their sexuality and social security
number. Conor Friedersdorf believes that the facial data of all Americans will be in a
government database within the coming decade (B). He then poses a question: “Want to keep
going about your life without your face giving away your identity? A mask may be your best
bet” (B). It is an absolute necessity for Americans to continue their daily lives, and in order for
Americans to maintain their right to privacy, federal policies and regulations need to be
established.
Fleming 12
Fig. 1. The use of facial recognition technology to retrieve personal information from Nektarios
Leontiadis; Data "Accretion" Digital image; CyBlog; Carnegie Mellon University CyLab, 11
Aug. 2011; Web; 13 Nov. 2015.
Fleming 13
Works Cited
Adams, Rachel. "Use of Facial-Recognition Tool Draws Privacy Concerns." Chicago Daily
Herald 2 Aug. 2015, Business sec.: n. pag. Paddock Publications, 2015. Web. 23 Oct.
2015.
Champagne, Denise M. "Does Your Face Reveal Too Much?" The Daily Record of Rochester 23
July 2012, Commentary sec.: n. pag. Dolan Media Newswires, 2012. Web.
Dormehl, Luke. "When Your Face No Longer Belongs to You." The Observer [England] 4 May
2014, Observer Review Discovery sec.: 22. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, 2014. Web.
Friedersdorf, Conor. "Face It, Anonymity on the Street Is History." Orange County Register
[California] 13 Nov. 2013, Local sec.: B. Orange County Register, 2013. Web.
Jeffries, Robb. "Is Facial Recognition the New Fingerprint?" Grand Forks Herald [North
Dakota] 30 June 2013, State and Regional News sec.: n. pag. Grand Forks Herald, 2013.
Web.
Klarreich, Erica. "Hello, My Name Is...: Facial Recognition and Privacy Concerns."
Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 57.8 (2014): 17-20. Web.
Lochner, Sabrina A. "Saving Face: Regulating Law Enforcement's Use of Mobile Facial
Recognition Technology & Iris Scans." Arizona Law Review 55 (2013): 201-34. Web.
"NTIA Talks on Facial Recognition Code of Conduct Failure." Biometric Technology Today
(2015): 2-3. Mayfield Press Ltd., July-Aug. 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
Price, Tom. "Big Data and Privacy." CQ Researcher 23.38 (2013): 909-32. Web.
Singer, Natasha. "Never Forgetting a Face." The New York Times 18 May 2014 late ed., Money
and Business/Financial Desk sec.: 1. The New York Times Company, 2014. Web.
Fleming 14
Sobel, Ben. "Facial Recognition Technology Is Spreading, and so Are Privacy Concerns." Los
Angeles Times 23 June 2015 home ed., Business: Business Desk sec.: 1C. Los Angeles
Times, 2015. Web.
Spencer, Jim. "They Can See Who You Are." Star Tribune [Minneapolis] 19 Aug. 2012, Metro
ed. Business sec.: 1D. Star Tribune, 2012. Web.
Top Related