Gonzalez 1

Javier Gonzalez
CST 300 Writing Lab
17 October 2020

Facial Recognition Technology: Privacy vs. Protection

Over the last decade, facial recognition technology (FRT) has exploded onto the public

scene and has become a part of everyday life for many people around the world. Its usage and

presence have become so ubiquitous that many people don’t even notice it anymore. In the

United States alone there are 70 million surveillance cameras installed (Ivanova, 2019) and it’s

expected to climb, especially with the popularity of private home security cameras such as

Amazon’s Ring and Google’s Nest. Many of the widely used social media platforms like

Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat, all use FRT to seamlessly identify people in photos and alter

one’s image with filters and facial swaps. This technology also provides additional conveniences

and security measures. Having to type in a password to unlock one’s cellphone is a thing of the

past. Many users access their personal information on and offline via their personal computers

and portable smart devices which can now be accessed with just a mere glance at the screen.

They’ve even created keyless smart doors that unlock themselves simply by just staring at a

monitor or camera. FRT applications such as Apple’s Face ID provide consumers an additional

fast and easy payment option in the form of contactless digital payment using a face payment or

facial recognition payment system. This is a very useful and innovative payment alternative to

the old-fashioned contact heavy payment options of cash and card transactions, which could help

mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

Despite all these added comforts and conveniences offered by FRT, there are real

concerns and risks posed by the improper use of this rapidly evolving technology. If placed in

the wrong hands, it can be used unethically to surveil individuals in a nonconsensual manner,
 Gonzalez 2

violate privacy rights, and selectively monitor certain groups due to implicit biases (Schippers,

2019). As societies learn to adapt and live with this omnipresent technology, many are grappling

with the dilemma of weighing the perks and usefulness of FRT against the potential dangers and

consequences presented by this technology.

Background

At its core, FRT is used to verify and identify an individual using their face. In recent

years, FRT has grown in popularity and usage. Companies, as well as consumers, are using the

power of FRT for added convenience, personalization, and security. FRT is being used where we

shop, dine, and travel. Brick and mortar stores are starting to use FRT screen monitors and

dynamic digital door displays to tailor advertisements to specific individuals on the fly.

Essentially, product ads displayed on monitors when a young woman walks by will be

completely different than that of when a middle-aged man passes by the same area (Kuligowski,

2019). FRT is also being utilized by law enforcement agencies to help them solve ongoing

investigations and has been used as a powerful tool in their fight against crime and terrorism.

These agencies have access to a vast array of photos taken from arrestee mugshots that are then

stored in huge identification databases (Lynch, 2018). Once stored away, these photos can then

be accessed anytime to cross-reference current photos and video taken from officers in the field,

CCTV, social media platforms, and traffic cameras to identify and capture known criminals and

terrorists. FRT has also assisted law enforcement agencies in locating missing persons.

Unfortunately, these added benefits and advantages may come at a steep price. There are

concerns among scholars, politicians, and the general public, which include: lack of oversight

and regulation for this emerging technology, inaccuracies in identifying certain individuals,

which could lead to wrongful convictions, erroneous and bias information built into the
 Gonzalez 3

technology, the potential for hackers stealing personal data from FRT databases, and a fear that

law enforcement agencies could abuse this technology to constantly monitor and surveil the

public, like how it’s done in other undemocratic countries (Martin, 2019). Acquiring these added

benefits and conveniences via this new technology could have long-lasting consequences on

citizen’s civil liberties.

In the 1960’s, Woodrow Wilson Bledsoe created a system to recognize and organize

people’s faces based on the positioning of facial features or biometrics, such as one’s eyes, ears,

mouth, nose, and hairline. This was the first instance of facial recognition technology. Over the

last decade, social media companies like Facebook started using this technology to detect people

in uploaded photos by creating tag suggestions. By 2011, FRT was used by law enforcement and

military personnel for the identification of deceased persons and was integral in confirming the

killing of Osama bin Laden, mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

(Dharaiya, 2020).

For many years, FRT’s growth and presence had gone mainly unnoticed by the general

population in the U.S. It started to become a more visible and polarizing issue when law

enforcement started implementing the use of mobile facial recognition in 2014 (Dharaiya, 2020),

which allows law enforcement to instantly identify individuals who have no ID or choose to

withhold their identity. FRT was thrust back into the spotlight in 2015 when it was discovered

that the Baltimore Police Department had used this technology to monitor and arrest individuals

participating in protests against the death of Freddie Gray, while in police custody (Lynch,

2018). Recently over this summer, in the wake of the George Floyd protests, concerns over law

enforcement using FRT to monitor protestors had surfaced again. As a result, many top tech
 Gonzalez 4

companies such as IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft have suspended their partnership in providing

facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies (Hill, 2020).

Stakeholders

The two major stakeholders at the center of this ethical issue are that of concerned

citizens and law enforcement agencies. Concerned citizens value personal freedom and their civil

liberties afforded to them by the U.S. Constitution. The right to privacy is an inherent human

right that many citizens cherish and are willing to defend if they feel it is under threat.

Independence and respect for autonomy are highly regarded ideologies that have been promoted

and encouraged since the founding of the United States and have naturally been passed on to its

citizenry over the centuries. Ultimately, concerned citizens feel that law enforcement agencies

should not use FRT because they feel it encroaches on their constitutional rights and is an

invasion of their privacy.

Concerned citizens use claims of fact to combat the widespread use of FRT in law

enforcement agencies. Research has repeatedly shown that FRT suffers from huge inaccuracies

when used to identify people of color, which has led to numerous wrongful convictions (Hill,

2020). Data has also demonstrated the chilling effect that FRT has on free speech and how it

discourages people from voicing dissenting views (Lynch, 2018). Despite these claims,

concerned citizens have to be cautious in not committing the slippery slope logical fallacy. Just

because there is an abundance of surveillance cameras being utilized by both private entities and

law enforcement agencies, does not mean that the United States will eventually become an

authoritarian state like China. Concerned citizens should not assert that the use of FRT in law

enforcement agencies will conclude with the most dire of consequences: the end of all civil
 Gonzalez 5

liberties. For concerned citizens, it all boils down to safeguarding their constitutional rights and

freedoms.

Law enforcement agencies value safety, security, and control. They know that in order

for a peaceful society to exist, they have to maintain law and order. These agencies feel that FRT

is needed to safeguard public security and to fight the scourge of crime. According to the police

commissioner of New York City, James O’Neill, FRT has been used as an incredibly powerful

tool for assisting law enforcement in solving criminal investigations and keeping everyone safe.

Many in law enforcement believe that modern day problems require modern day solutions and

this 21st-century technology is that solution (O’Neill, 2019).

Because of their declared success with this technology, law enforcement agencies use

claims of cause to support and strengthen their continued use of FRT. Since the adoption of FRT

in law enforcement, there has been a reduction in certain types of crime and criminals who have

eluded law enforcement for many years, are now being located and apprehended (Lawrence,

2019). Law enforcement agencies claim that many of these positive outcomes and recent

breakthroughs in unsolved cases are the direct result of proper FRT use by law enforcement.

Like concerned citizens, law enforcement agencies could also fall victim to the slippery slope

logical fallacy in taking a fatalistic viewpoint that if they aren’t allowed to utilize this technology

to its full potential, crime will soar and the country will no longer be safe; chaos will ensue. For

law enforcement agencies, the safety of the general public and national security hang in the

balance.

Although law enforcement agencies have always claimed that they use FRT to keep

everyone safe, concerned citizens believe that their rights are being infringed upon. Both parties

of this debate believe that they have the country’s best interest in mind and feel justified in their
 Gonzalez 6

position. Since this has become a reoccurring dilemma and issue over the past few years, it’s

important to ask oneself—is it right for law enforcement agencies to use facial recognition

technology to increase public safety, even if it violates citizen’s constitutional rights?

Stakeholder Positions in Ethical Frameworks

For this ethical issue, concerned citizens are adhering to the ethical framework of rights

theory. In the 17th century, philosopher John Locke proposed that natural rights bestowed by God

ensured that no one should have to fear for their life, health, liberty, or possessions. This was one

of the first instances of rights theory. Rights established and protected by a society are given the

highest priority in rights theory. Furthermore, governments have a moral obligation to respect

citizen’s natural rights and should be responsive to the needs and wishes of its citizens. This

theory also recognizes that human beings have fundamental rights and privileges such as life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Concerned citizens are looking to secure and strengthen their constitutional rights; not

weaken them. Abolishing the use of FRT in law enforcement would eliminate any possible threat

posed by this rapidly evolving technology. At the very least, if law enforcement agencies are

permitted to use FRT, concerned citizen would like to see more oversight and regulations

imposed by the government to ensure that FRT is being used properly by these agencies. Under

rights theory, if the U.S. government fails to adequately protect its citizens rights or oversteps its

authority by infringing on these rights, then it has failed in performing its essential duty for

which it was created.

If concerned citizens lose this ethical debate, they stand to lose some of their privacy and

rights. Once certain rights and privileges are lost, it may be impossible to regain them back in the

future. This could also set off a dangerous precedent and make it harder to ensure and protect
 Gonzalez 7

civil liberties moving forward. It could also pave the way for more overreaching tactics being

implemented by law enforcement agencies in the future. Ultimately, this could lay the foundation

for becoming an Orwellian surveillance state.

In justifying their use of FRT, law enforcement agencies adhere to the ethical framework

of utilitarianism. This ethical framework was founded by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham

in the 18th century and emphasizes "the greatest good for the greatest number” (Shermer, 2018).

Utilitarianism is concerned with achieving the maximum benefit or good for the most people

involved and tries to find solutions that benefit the majority of people. In the case of law

enforcement agencies using FRT, the benefits of using this technology to ensure the safety and

prosperity of society outweigh any perceived threat that may come from its use.

If law enforcement agencies win this ethical debate, they will be able to provide more

protection to its citizens, solve crimes that have gone unsolved, provide a sense of heightened

security, deter illegal activity, and prevent certain crimes from happening in the first place (i.e.

domestic terrorism). On the flip side, if they lose this ethical debate, they will be subject to more

oversite and regulations, which can hinder investigations and restrict law enforcement agencies

from effectively carrying out their sworn duty—to protect and serve. Also, law enforcement

agencies will have less resources/tools at their disposal to efficiently solve crimes and thwart the

bad guys. They also run the risk of ruining their reputation and relationship with the general

public, which would give less credibility to one the core pillars of the criminal justice system,

law enforcement. Once one of these pillars is compromised, the whole system could come

crashing down.

My Position
 Gonzalez 8

Although I support the brave men and women who put their lives on the lines every day

to keep our streets and cities safe, I don’t believe that we should give up any of our freedoms to

gain a small semblance of security from today’s problematic law enforcement agencies. If FRT

was an accurate and error-free system for all, then I would consider a small tradeoff of some

privacy for greater security but where it currently stands, it is not worth it. Furthermore, allowing

the current state of law enforcement to use this power unchecked would be disastrous and do

more harm than good. Therefore, I am in agreeance with my fellow concerned citizens and share

the same sentiments that the risk to lose more than what we hope to gain is too high and not wise

in the long run, especially in our current political and social climate. Once certain rights and

privileges have been stripped away, they aren’t coming back.

The fate of FRT use in law enforcement should be decided on by voters and if

implemented, needs to be regulated to ensure that citizen’s constitutional rights are protected.

The public should have a right to know if they are being monitored by law enforcement and

should have a say in shaping its policies. If deemed too dangerous to use, I would support the

will of the American people and not want facial recognition technology to be used under any

circumstance. I would also recommend that law enforcement agencies undergo more training and

raise the bar in admitting recruits into their training academies. It should be mandatory that all

peace officers have at least an associate degree and take required courses in critical thinking,

criminology, ethics, and police policy and procedures. This will ensure that future police officers

and investigations are guided by proper vetting, training, best practices, and education.
 Gonzalez 9

References

Dharaiya, D. (2020, March 12). History of Facial Recognition Technology and its Bright Future.

Retrieved from https://readwrite.com/2020/03/12/history-of-facial-recognition-technology-and-

its-bright-

future/#:~:text=Law%20enforcement%20adoption%20of%20facial%20recognition%20in%2020

14.&text=The%20technology%20became%20inevitable%20for%20the%20retail%20industry%2

0in%202017.

Hill, K. (2020, August 3). Wrongfully Accused by an Algorithm. New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html

Ivanova, I. (2019, December 10). Video surveillance in U.S. described as on par with China. Retrieved

from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-u-s-uses-surveillance-cameras-just-as-much-as-china/

Kuligowski, K. (2019, July 18). Facial Recognition Advertising: The New Way to Target Ads at

Consumers. Retrieved from https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15213-walgreens-facial-

recognition.html

Lawrence, R. (2019, September 6). Commentary: Why law enforcement should use facial recognition.

The San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved from

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2019-09-06/commentary-why-law-

enforcement-should-use-facial-recognition

Lynch, J. (2018, February 12). Face Off: Law Enforcement Use of Face Recognition Technology.

Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/wp/law-enforcement-use-face-

recognition#_idTextAnchor004
 Gonzalez 10

Martin, N. (2019, September 25). The Major Concerns Around Facial Recognition Technology. Forbes.

Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolemartin1/2019/09/25/the-major-concerns-

around-facial-recognition-technology/#7519f1234fe3

O’Neil, J. (2019, June 8). How Racial Recognition Makes You Safer. New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/09/opinion/facial-recognition-police-new-york-city.html

Schippers, B. (2019, August 21). Facial recognition: ten reasons you should be worried about the

technology. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/facial-recognition-ten-reasons-you-

should-be-worried-about-the-technology-

122137#:~:text=Facial%20recognition%20technology's%20indiscriminate%20and,the%20state

%20knowing%20about%20it.&text=Blanket%20surveillance%20can%20deter%20individuals%

20from%20attending%20public%20events.

Shermer, M. (2018, April 17). You Kant Be Serious. Scientific American, 318(5), 80-80. doi:

10.1038/scientificamerican0518-80