2021 the 3rd World Symposium on Artificial Intelligence

Ethics and Facial Recognition Technology: An

Integrative Review
Aimee Kendall Roundtree
Technical Communication Program
2021 3rd World Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (WSAI) | 978-1-6654-0451-8/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/WSAI51899.2021.9486382

Texas State University

San Marcos, TX, U.S.
akr@txstate.edu

Abstract—This integrative review will synthesize current
studies and research on the ethics of facial recognition technology
to raise awareness and reflection among engineering
practitioners, teachers, and students. Engineers as developers of
this software—and the professional communicators who help test
and translate them for the public—could use ethical insights to
discuss and implement user-centered design leading up to and
after deployment more meaningfully. The integrative review will
focus on academic research and studies conducted in the past ten
years about ethical issues in facial recognition to synthesize
findings and insights toward a framework for guidelines and best
practices.
Keywords—facial recognition, ethics, integrative review
I. INTRODUCTION
This integrative review will synthesize current studies and
research on facial recognition technology (FRT) ethics to raise
awareness and reflection among engineering practitioners,
teachers, and students.
By 2024, the global facial recognition market will grow
from $3.2 billion in 2019 to $7.0 billion by 2024, at a
compound annual growth rate of 16.6% from 2019 to 2024 [1].
The growth causes some alarm, mainly because of FRT
inaccuracies that could widen social stigmas and disparities.
For example, facial recognition algorithms are inaccurate in
identifying some communities of color. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) evaluated 189 facial
recognition algorithms from 99 developers, representing most
of the industry [2]. NIST examined how well they perform
"one-to-one" matching (used for verification tasks such as
unlocking a smartphone or checking a passport) and "one-to-
many" matching (used for identification of a person of
interest). In addition, they tracked false positives and false
negatives. A false positive means that the software wrongly
considered photos of two different individuals to show the
same person, while a false negative means the software failed
to match two photos that do show the same person. Using a
sample of 18.27 million images of 8.49 million people from
operational databases provided by the State Department, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI, NIST found
higher rates of false positives in one-to-one matching for Asian
and African American faces relative to images of Caucasians.
Legal questions and uncertainties also complicate the
implementation of facial recognition. At a recent
Congressional hearing, the American Civil Liberties Union
discovered that the FBI's massive facial recognition apparatus
continues to expand and can now match against over 640
million photos [3]-[5]. The hearing also uncovered that the FBI
claims it can use face recognition on individuals without a
warrant or probable cause. The Bureau does not track basic
statistics to measure the technology's efficacy, nor can it
confirm that it complies with all constitutional obligations.
An integrative review is helpful because it synthesizes the
latest insights to recommend guidelines and best practices. For
example, engineers as developers of this software—and the
professional communicators who help test and translate
software for the public—could use ethical insights to more
meaningfully discuss and implement user-centered design
leading up to and after deployment. The integrative review will
focus on academic research and studies conducted in the past
ten years about ethical issues in facial recognition to synthesize
findings and insights toward a framework for guidelines and
practices.
II. METHODS
Study characteristics included peer-reviewed articles and
excluded theses, primarily because they are not peer-reviewed.
The studies were published in English between 2010 and 2020.
Searching ACM, IEEE, EBSCO, Scopus, Web of Science,
PubMed, ERIC, ScienceDirect, JSTOR, and Google Scholar
enabled finding articles and identifying sources. However,
library holdings did not allow for accessing the full-text
versions of a few articles. Search terms included facial
recognition, software, technology, morals, and ethics.
Screening involved reading database previews and article
abstracts for eligibility. Once eligible studies were screened,
reading the content of the entire article revealed the extent to
which they identified ethical problems and dynamics. We
eliminated articles that did not mention ethical issues, theories,
or dynamics more than twice in the article. We compiled full-
text articles in spreadsheets and gathered paragraphs and
sentences that developed arguments or main points about
ethical dynamics. The analysis also entailed close readings of
each included article.
Tropes and LIWC software helped code data, sentence by
sentence, using an inductive coding analysis to handle and
interpret data and to combine the results of studies [6]-[9].
Tropes software analyzes written or spoken texts by reducing

978-1-6654-0451-8/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the text to essential linguistic components and matches to 20 1 2.14 6 consequentialism, intuitionism
validated dictionaries of text types. A close reading of content 21 0 0 0 deontological, situational, subjectivism
confirmed categories. LIWC includes text analysis modules 22 1 0 1 consequentialism, intuitionism
and built-in dictionaries. LIWC reads written or transcribed consequentialism, deontological,
verbal texts, compares each word in the text against a validated 23 0 0.66 3 situational
dictionary, and identifies which words are associated with 24 0 0.71 83 consequentialism, intuitionism
psychological and sentiment categories. The overall sentiment 25 1 0 1 consequentialism, virtue, intuitionism
was determined by subtracting negative from positive 26 1 0 2 deontological, situational
sentiment scores. 27 1 0.91 4 consequentialism, situational
28 0 0 3 situational, subjectivism
The meta-analysis was conducted using the software to
29 1 0 17 deontological, situational, intuitionism
categorize sentence topics and count frequencies of recurring consequentialism, subjectivism,
themes. We found pertinent sentences. We searched for 30 1 12.92 1 emotivism
keywords, gathered sentences in a spreadsheet, and analyzed consequentialism, deontological,
them using qualitative close reading and quantitative data 31 1 0 1 subjectivism
consequentialism, deontological,
analytics software. Both allowed for sentence-level topic 32 0 1.06 17 intuitionism
categorization and sentiment analysis to derive a frequency consequentialism, deontological,
count of sentences with different thematic foci. Quantitative 33 1 0 0 situational, subjectivism
analyses confirmed qualitative close reading, and vice versa, 34 1 0 0 consequentialism, deontological, virtue
consequentialism, deontological,
using iterative checking. Software counted frequencies. 35 1 0 2 situational
Topics and sentiments were identified using Tropes and 36 1 1.12 3 consequentialism, deontological
LIWC, as well as verified by close reading. Tropes used text 37 0 23.59 36 consequentialism, deontological, virtue
mining and natural language processing to analyze and consequentialism, deontological,
38 0 25.55 147 intuitionism
categorize sentences. Tropes detect content categories, consequentialism, deontological,
contexts, themes, and principal actors by applying three levels 39 1 0.17 4 emotivism
of semantic classifications. Each content category was consequentialism, deontological,
40 1 2.71 21 subjectivism
confirmed by close reading by the coder. Next, full texts of the 41 1 0 1 consequentialism, deontological, virtue
categories were analyzed using LIWC for sentiment analysis. 42 0 0.22 10 deontological, subjectivism
LIWC reads text and counts the percentage of words that consequentialism, deontological,
reflect different emotions, thinking styles, social concerns, and 43 0 0.26 4 situational
parts of speech. LIWC was used to determine the sentiment of 44 0 3.96 49 subjectivism, virtue, emotivism
content comprising categories. LIWC enlists its preset library 45 0 1.64 8 deontological, situational
validated in social, clinical, health, and cognitive psychology 46 1 59 18 consequentialism, deontological
research. The results section reports average sentiment scores consequentialism, intuitionism,
of themes and codes. 47 1 5.71 71 emotivism
48 1 0 1 deontological, subjectivism
A coder marked which school of philosophy the sentence 49 1 0 0 consequentialism
represented per categories classified using text mining software 50 0 0 0 deontological, subjectivism
to determine philosophical leanings. The same coder internally 51 0 5.04 21 consequentialism, situational
validated the codes on the second round of coding completed 52 0 0 0 consequentialism, virtue
four weeks after the first round.
53 0 0 5 consequentialism, subjectivism
III. RESULTS 54 0 1.03 15 consequentialism, intuitionism
55 0 0 0 consequentialism, situational
A. Articles Included 56 0 0 0 deontological
57 0 1.21 44 consequentialism, deontological
TABLE I. INCLUDED ARTICLES & CONCLUSION PHILOSOPHIES
58 1 0 1 consequentialism, intuitionism
ref # coi / ack fwci cited ethical philosophy of conclusions 59 0 8.36 30 consequentialism, situational
60 0 0 0 virtue, intuitionism
10 1 1.55 42 deontological, situational, intuitionism
61 0 0 0 consequentialism, deontological, virtue
11 0 0 1 consequentialism, deontological
62 1 0 1 consequentialism, intuitionism
12 1 5.22 1 deontological, situational, subjectivism
consequentialism, situational, 63 0 0.2 5 consequentialism, intuitionism
13 0 0.92 55 intuitionism
consequentialism, deontological,
14 0 0 1 situational The general search yielded 157 articles total that mentioned
15 0 0 4 consequentialism, deontological the keywords in their titles, keywords, abstract, or title. In the
16 0 1.45 33 situational second step, a survey of abstracts eliminated articles, including
consequentialism, deontological, repeats (n=26), language (n=8), access (n=14), and focus
17 0 0.59 11 emotivism
consequentialism, deontological, (n=55) of the publications. Overall, 54 articles and chapters
18 1 0 0 subjectivism were included in this review. Under half (n=23) reported
19 0 0 0 consequentialism, subjectivism, virtue conflicts of interest (COI) or acknowledgments of funding

11

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(ACK). Most earned a low field-weighted citation impact the circumstances around FRT applications. Subjectivism
(fwci) or the ratio of the total citations received and the total underscored how the ethics of facial recognition varied for
citations that would be expected. Eight had an FWCI of 5 or different individuals or organizations. Virtue statements called
higher. Eighteen were cited ten or more times. upon the integrity of organizations or individuals rather than
the value of the application itself to estimate the ethics of facial
B. Philosophy and Sentiment recognition. Intuitionism relied on the accuracy of the
Sentences from conclusions and full text were evaluated for algorithm to determine the ethics of facial recognition. Finally,
their philosophical positioning and their positive versus emotivism estimated the ethics of facial recognition based on
negative sentiment. Table II shows the philosophical feelings toward humans or technology.
positioning and sentiment of conclusions drawn. Table III
shows philosophical positioning and sentiment of full-text Most conclusion statements assumed a consequentialist
content and themes that emerged within philosophy categories. approach (n=1262) that evaluated the technology based on its
potential outcomes. In addition, many statements took a
TABLE II. PHILOSOPHIES OF CONCLUSION STATEMENTS situational approach (n=949, where circumstances dictated
appropriateness) or a deontological approach (n=621,
philosophy n + - sample underscoring rules and guidelines). Virtue (n=565, where the
Consequentialism 1262 2.22 1.22 It is essential to weigh the relative characters of the designers or organizations using the
benefits and burdens of specific technology prevail) and intuitionism (n=409, where the
FRT uses in health care and integrity of the software or algorithm determines the ethics of
conduct research into how patients FRT) were also prevalent. There were also subjective
perceive its use [27, p. 3]. statements (n=336, which underscored the variety of personal
Situational 949 1.79 0.86 Even when data in a particular data or individual opinions on the ethics of facial recognition) and
set are genuinely anonymous, there emotive statements (n= 224, where ethical judgment and
may still be issues when that decisions were expressed in terms of feelings and emotions).
dataset is combined with other Subjectivism and emotivism were less positive overall than
datasets.[28, p. 242] consequentialism and deontological statements.
Deontological 621 1.98 0.93 The government has only recently
begun to focus on this new privacy Subtracting negative from positive scores, statements about
risk and consider the possibility of behavior, characteristics, and security were generally more
laws and regulations to protect positive than discussions of social groups, laws, and bodies.
consumers from inappropriate use Points made about feelings and fighting were both more
of facial recognition technologies negative than positive overall.
by the digital advertising
industry.[14, p. 247] TABLE III. FULL-TEXT THEMES, SENTIMENT & PHILOSOPHIES
Virtue 565 1.97 1.12 Businesses committed to ethics code # + - philosophy
and integrity are concerned with communication 3907 1.76 0.84 subjectivism
finding ways to implement computer science 2801 1.36 0.62 intuitionism
ethically appropriate standards and education 1933 1.9 0.78 virtue
practices as part of their business business 1842 1.79 0.73 consequential
activity. [10, p. 882] technology 1782 1.97 1.19 intuitionism
Intuitionism 409 1.75 0.94 In a real sense, it looks like a black time 1698 1.65 0.93 situational
box, where no knowledge about law 1566 1.81 1.44 deontological
social group 1430 1.69 1.31 situational
the process is happening in
science 1403 1.65 0.92 deontological
between, which results in
security 1264 4 2.62 consequential
hindrance in the acceptance of
media 1150 1.41 0.7 situational
biometric technology, especially in system 1057 2.08 1.15 deontological
the United States of America [29, device 1045 1.81 0.77 intuitionism
p. 3]. body 1039 1.2 0.83 subjective
Subjectivism 336 1.65 0.93 Biometrics systems can only deal health 991 2.26 1.33 situational
with people who fall within the person 990 1.83 1.23 virtue
range defined as ‘‘normal’’ by the language 953 1.86 0.79 deontological
individual system’s commissioners, fight 950 1.9 2.26 subjective
designers, and administrators. [19, behavior 932 3.12 1.37 emotivism
p. 49] control 851 1.81 0.91 deontological
Emotivism 224 2.46 1.75 [O]ur human distinctiveness is a location 765 1.77 0.96 situational
source of wonder [30, p. 4]. characteristic 738 2.79 1.23 virtue
feeling 694 3.08 3.12 emotivism
politics 667 1.63 0.92 consequential
Consequentialism evaluated facial recognition technology cognition 610 1.98 1 virtue
(FRT) based on outcomes expected from its application. organization 545 1.8 0.82 virtue
Deontological statements called for setting up rules to govern automation 530 2.29 1.46 intuitionism
its ethical application. Situational statements called attention to

12

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
C. Themes Within Philosophies
Table III illustrates the frequency of most common and
pertinent themes that emerged in the full text of the article's
content and corresponding philosophical categories and
positive or negative sentiment.
Consequentialism emerged in questions about the business
outcomes of facial recognition. The articles were most likely to
make the case from a business perspective (n=1842) than from
a social, behavioral, or legal perspective. Business
justifications included discussing facial recognition as a benefit
or essential part of business activities and practices: "This
technology is currently being employed by many different
businesses and branches of the government in an attempt to
improve security” [11, p. 2]. Business activities served as a
factor for ethical consideration and a consequence to weigh for
determining action. Money and financial consequences
(n=441) also factored prominently in making a case for
clarifying FRT ethics. The economic implications of facial
recognition mattered: “In the case of unethical behavior, an
organization must fully assume financial costs, but also image
related ones that could lead to immense market share losses,
reducing turnover, diminishing the whole company’s
credibility among the target client groups” [36, p. 10]. The
upside of the argument promises diminishing customer pain
points and the downside, loss of credibility and consumer trust.
The security (n=1264) of facial recognition systems was
another important consequence considered. Questions lingered
about whether the systems protected the public or took
advantage of them and their data. On the one hand, facial
recognition was proposed as more secure than passwords. Yet,
on the other hand, hacking such facial recognition software
would compromise public security. "[I]f your facial data is
stolen [it] is not something you can change easily, making all
future facial recognition based permission systems…subject to
external risk" [21, p. 87]. Furthermore, the digital and personal
nature of the data would render it vulnerable to hacking, and
data "may be misused, lost, or stolen, leading to potential
unauthorized matching, tracking, impersonation, and other
deceptive practices" [16, p. 56].
The literature promised increased security as a potential
benefit such as "alleged value the technology has in stopping
crime, and arresting criminals like murderers, drug traffickers
and sexual offenders…[and] the added feeling of security that
the technology may bring" [13, p. 102]. However, others
underscored the risks to the public and their privacy and
security: "Facial recognition technology will definitely benefit
advertisers; however, it poses complex privacy and security
concerns" [61, p. 247] In particular, the software's poor
accuracy record in vulnerable populations posed more risk and
less security for those communities: "Future research should
also consider examining other potential risks of using facial
recognition technology, such as stereotyping effects (i.e.,
racism, sexism, and ageism)" [61, p. 249].
Treatment of the body (n=1039) and body parts emerged.
Facial recognition renders physical characteristics as data: "The
most current data suggests that eyebrows are more important
than the eyes" [42, p. 3]. Some literature compared how facial
recognition technology processed the body to other forms of
13
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
bio-identification: "In contrast to other biometric forms of
identification such as digitized fingerprints and iris scans,
facial recognition systems are inexpensive, unobtrusive, and
can operate anonymously in the background without the active
consent of those under surveillance" [20, p. 251]. Using body
data without consent compromises privacy and ownership.
Still, some findings suggested that the public feels more
comfortable with FRT than other biometrics: "[E]ye tracking,
biometric measurements, IAT, and facial recognition seem to
generate fewer ethical issues" [36, p. 17].
Furthermore, issues of control (n=851) were another
significant consequence. The proprietary nature of most facial
recognition software--industry control of the algorithms--cast
suspicion about the software's trustworthiness: "For
commercially available recognition systems, those who are
invisible may simply become cases of uncorrected error" [20,
p. 252]. Who controls the data mattered: "Amazon was
selected following the revelation of the active use and
promotion of its facial recognition technology in law
enforcement" [38, p. 431].
Finally, the articles described how facial recognition might
enable bad behavior and bad faith in politics (n=667) in
governments using FRT. Bad behavior includes false
incarcerations and dehumanization of citizens. For example:
"Stochastic governance is made possible by Big
Data…Stochastic governance even subjects human bodies to
its logic” [44, p. 4-5].
Situational critique emerged when articles weighed how
the technology would impact different countries and settings.
Different locations (n=765) had different values and laws,
which influenced attitudes about the ethics of the technology.
Time (n=1698) impacted the conditions of trustworthiness and
ethics of the technology. The articles discussed how changes
over time and aggregated data over time compromise the
integrity, accuracy, and precision of the technology: “The
process usually takes account of the likely object dynamics and
expected changes (or constancy) in shape and appearance over
time” [10, p. 274].
Articles boasted the promise of facial recognition to help
keep schools safe. For example, "Many parents would most
likely feel safer knowing their children's elementary school had
a facial recognition system to ensure that convicted child
molesters were granted not access to school grounds" [13, p.
102]. The studies also discuss applications of the technology
for monitoring student activity: "[S]everal schools in the
United Kingdom have started already using facial recognition
systems to monitor students' attendance and for timekeeping
tasks" [61, p. 243].
How the media reports the ethics of facial recognition was
also a big theme (n=1150). Facial recognition deployment in
protests raised ethical concerns: “The recent media coverage of
police use of facial recognition on protesters in Hong Kong has
sparked fears of persecution” [26, p. 302]. The literature also
described how the media inflates the touted value and virtues
of facial recognition software: “The ethics of the claims
regarding the performance and effectiveness of facial
recognition systems by the media, and those companies selling
the systems, merits some consideration” [11, p. 7].
 Facial recognition also factored prominently in health
(n=991). For example, articles proposed using it "for
managing a patient's adherence to medication…or to gauge the
patient's pain level" [22, p. 1]. Another proposed using it for
"prediction as to who will benefit…the most in the long run or
who is most likely to have certain diseases" [22, p. 4].
However, the literature focused more on public rather than
clinical deployments of facial recognition technology. "As a
case study, the Faceit facial recognition engine of Identix
Corporation will be analyzed, as well as its use in Smart video
surveillance (CCTV) systems in city centers and airports" [61,
p. 97]. It also discussed some personal and voluntary
deployment for quality of life, such as dating services. "In
addition, a dating service named Findyourfacemate.com uses a
sophisticated facial recognition tool to match potential partners
based on the psychological theory that people with similar
facial features are attracted to each other" [61, p. 244].
Differences existed between culture and countries matter in
how the ethics of FRT is perceived: "A startup signed a deal
with the Zimbabwe government to harvest the faces of millions
of citizens through unprecedented access " [37, p. 148]. FRT is
acceptable in some countries or cultures more so than in others.
The literature called for more research and investigation into
public perception of facial recognition, given the cultural
differences and ethical risks. "[F]uture studies should attempt
to identify consumers both positive and negative
perceptions…[and] investigate how to protect vulnerable
market segments, such as children and teenagers, from highly
sophisticated facial recognition advertising" [61 p. 249].
The literature focused primarily on public rather than
private deployments of facial recognition technology. "[A]
facial recognition engine will be analyzed, as well as its use in
Smart video surveillance (CCTV) systems in city centers and
airports" [13 p. 97]. It also discussed some personal and
voluntary deployment for quality of life. For example, it
described dating services that "uses a sophisticated facial
recognition tool to match potential partners based on the
psychological theory that people with similar facial features are
attracted to each other" [61 p. 244]. In the literature,
differences between culture and countries matter in how the
ethics of facial recognition is perceived: "[O]rganizations in
Romania are more familiarized with traditional research
techniques than with those that are used in neuromarketing"
[36, p. 139]. FRT is acceptable in some countries or cultures
more so than in others.
Regarding social groups (n=1430), questions lingered about
use in public places: “[T]he system is operated by the city
police department…for routine surveillance, meaning that
people in the area will be routinely scanned and have their
faces searched in a database” [13 p. 100].
Ultimately, media coverage (n=1150) reflects the
differences and variations of attitudes around the world about
FRT: "[In the] wider media debate…proponents typically
argue that the technology has significant security benefits and
minimal privacy losses...Opponents typically argue that the
security benefits are overestimated, and the privacy losses are
underestimated” [13, p. 101].
14
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Deontological concerns emerged about general and
industry laws, policies, and rules that might help improve the
ethical integrity of the technology. Although legal
considerations are not always the same as ethical ones, the
literature framed ethical concerns about facial recognition in
terms of the law (n=1566). Facial recognition was
contemplated for law enforcement in terms of decreasing
violence and increasing security: "Police forces and national
security agencies in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Singapore,
South Korea and elsewhere are experimenting with facial
recognition to combat violent crime and tighten border
security" [44, p. 94]. The articles suggested that governments
pass legislation for facial recognition. "Based on the findings
of future research policy-makers will be able to understand
potential harms of using facial recognition advertising before
setting up guidelines or regulations" [61, p. 249]. Industries
themselves are also working out self-regulation and guidelines.
Industry-established privacy guidelines should "include the
rules that 'Clear signage has been posted throughout the
area'...[and] that 'Smart CCTV' is in use" [13 p. 103]. Industries
should also disclose how they gather and use databases of
images. "The images in the database are those of known
offenders; non-matching images are discarded from the system
once the comparison has been conducted" [13 p. 103].
Rigors and procedural logic of the scientific method and
research methodology (n=1403) also helped the articles
demonstrate the problems with the technology and propose
further inquiries to help improve the technology: “It would be
best to understand this through some detailed study of the logic
and operation of these algorithms in diverse settings with
diverse databases” [24, p. 80]
Articles noted that the ethics of FRT hinged on the rules of
the social and organizational systems (n=1057) that use them.
Even if the programming is ethical, the rules and practices of
society might still lead to unethical deployments: "It is
therefore important to consider the whole system when
analyzing a facial recognition system” [14, p. 45].
Language (n=953) also revealed or obscured rules of
engagement with facial recognition technology. First, articles
stressed the importance of making transparent and clear to
users the terms and conditions of data storage and the use and
limitations of the technology. "We suffer from consent fatigue,
which is an overload of information on terms and conditions
we are not able to sort through anymore” [33, p. 121]. Second,
if the syntax and subroutines of facial recognition programs
themselves are black boxes inaccessible to all stakeholders,
then it poses ethical problems. It “is impossible to inspect that
code in operation, as it becomes implemented through multiple
layers of translation for its execution” [24, p. 77].
Virtues of programmers and the organizations where they
worked were called into question. Facial recognition was
organizational but also personal (n=990). Facial recognition
might accurately detect personal characteristics and interpret "a
person's emotions based on his facial movements" [36, p.16].
However, such predictions are superficial or based on affect.
Facial recognition and other biometric technologies reduce
people to biological characteristics such as "individual features
and continuous analysis of unique body dynamics" [32, p.
262]. In addition, studies stressed that FRT must account for
subtle differences in individually and collectively held values
and morals: "There may be cases where multiple users need to
set multiple preferences" [46, p. 584].
They also pointed out that the individual biometrics and
characteristics (n=738) that differentiate one face from
another—the differences that FRT exploits—constitute
personal identity. Therefore, they should be highly regarded
and protected in terms of ethical deployments of FRT: "Data
management is a sensitive topic among research managers
because a possible "leak" of information (confidential data
regarding socio-demographic characteristics of participants,
answers, attitudes, behaviors, etc.) could ruin companies' image
and credibility among current and/or prospective customers”
[36, p. 134].
Different morals of organizations (n=545) involved might
hinder consensus. Each has different priorities for FRT ethics.
They included civil rights groups, businesses, governmental
branches, advertisers, and professional organizations
representing these stakeholders, among others. [11, 13, 20, 38,
57, 61]. However, the stakeholders discussed were
overwhelmingly from North America (n=1219) and Europe
(n=916) more so than in Asia (n=289), Africa (n=62), and
developing countries or emerging economies therein.
Still, there was skepticism about the capacity of industry
ethical standards to overcome industry self-interest:
"Commercial facial recognition algorithms may further
entrench unregulated corporate actors in the operations of the
criminal justice system” [20 p. 253]. There was worry about
governmental invasion of privacy and overreach in gathering
public data: "Next there is the question of government invasion
of privacy through the use of facial recognition technology.
Current legal doctrine…holds that there is little or no
expectation of privacy in public…This view does not account
for the advancement of technology and the implications it
portends for privacy" [11 p. 7]. Questions also lingered about
the security of facial recognition in law and order. Take, for
example, the prospect of hacking, photo-editing, and fakes. "If
Deep Fake or misleading algorithms have found their way into
the A.I. used by the police, then it is an easy matter for the
software to mislead the police to believe that an innocent
bystander is a criminal" [22, p. 7].
Education (n=1933) was recommended for improving the
virtue of all stakeholders involved. The literature called for
more training to improve FRT algorithms: "[S]cholarship on
the impact of algorithmic audits on increasing algorithmic
fairness and transparency in commercial systems is nascent"
[38, p. 429]. Articles recommended training on code of ethics
and conduct for development teams, for example, developing
"educational material on fairness considerations for their
developer or enterprise clients" [38, p. 433]. The articles
stressed that every stakeholder should have cognition (n=594)
and understanding of the ethical issues: "Consequently, there
needs to be a greater awareness and concern for how such
content is managed and handled” [18, p. 4].
Intuitionism emerged as a feature of FRT algorithms
themselves. According to the articles, whether FRT is ethical to
some extent depends on the algorithm’s accuracy and ability to
15
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
predict and intuit insights. Some literature suggested that FRT
could achieve high accuracy: "Facial recognition is touted as
the 'holy grail' of digital surveillance (Introna & Wood, 2004)"
[20, p. 251]. Other literature suggested that the complexity and
variability of bodily information prevented true FRT accuracy:
"Current facial recognition technology has not fully matured
enough to perfectly identify an individual by analyzing his
facial information." [61, p. 243]. Changes in features pose
difficulties for accuracy: " [The] machines were not adequately
equipped to deal with simple––from a human perspective––
changes in appearance" [57, p. 49].
Other aspects of computer science (n=2801) limited FRT's
capacity to intuit accurate insights. For example, articles
criticized technology based on homogeneous images because
they lead to false positives and negatives for excluded
populations. "[M]ost of these databases include a limited
number of subjects with many replications under niche
conditions and no standard baseline control images” [12, p. 3].
Articles describe techniques (n=1782) for increasing FRT
trustworthiness, such as masking: "A technique to
automatically perform such blurring or masking of faces” [10,
p. 280]. Still, others ascribed ethical agency to FRT devices
(n=993). Sometimes they found devices virtuous. “[T]he rare
disease world now has a powerful tool that…may reap
significant benefits” [30, p. 659]. Sometimes they found them
dubious. "[W]e must also consider the ethics of these devices
in a shifting technological/surveillance culture” [23, p. 167].
In many cases, articles described how FRT enables
automation (n=530) in robots, which bestows them with some
degree of agency and potential for ethical behavior, actions,
decision making, and abuse. "[O]nce therapeutic robots leave
the laboratory and clinical setting, they will no longer be
regulated for ethical oversight" [46, p. 577].
Subjectivism also emerged in articles about FRT ethics.
Many underscored how very different individual perspectives,
values, and morals comprised the conversation.
Communication (n=3907) called for open debates involving
diverse opinions about the matter: “This debate must consider
all the potential impacts of this technology and must be
conducted in an open manner" [14, p. 45]. In addition, it
included calls for disclosing terms of use and requesting
consent from all stakeholders: "[I]ndividuals included in these
face databases have not provided consent for that inclusion”
[12, p. 13]. But communication also revealed the process of
translating and turning faces and other biometrics into
information: “[O]ther biometric representations of your body a
reflection of your identity, are personal information” [16, p.
57].
The literature framed the ethical issues as a debate or fight
(n=950) between dichotomous positions. On the one hand,
facial recognition fought crime and threats to public safety:
"The Department of Homeland Security has spent millions of
dollars on cameras with facial recognition capabilities in an
attempt to identify potential threats to the American people"
[11, p. 2]. On the other, it harmed personal privacy: "The threat
posed to privacy by facial recognition technology far
outweighs any possible benefits of the technology" [11, p. 8].
 Emotivism, or using feelings as a primary determiner of
ethics, also emerged in the literature. Behavior (n=932) of
facial recognition software also mattered to ethical
calculations. The literature proposed that the software could
interpret human sentiment, making the software complicit in
unethical behavior. "[T]he important features for human facial
recognition…are the eyes, mouth, and nose, although the eyes
and eyebrows were treated as one unit" [42, p. 2].
The extent to which facial recognition involved human
feelings (n=694) also mattered to whether the software was
considered ethical. Per the literature, the variety of human
emotions poses a real challenge for FRT's technical and moral
side. The variety might impact accuracy and usability. "There
may be cases where multiple users need to set multiple
preferences—a feature that could be enabled by facial
recognition possible in many therapeutic robots" [46, p. 584].
These general differences are compounded by cultural
differences in facial expressions that might further impact
accuracy and usability: "[E]motions are cultural
products...Emotions are not universal and do not exist by
themselves. Facial moves that are interpreted as smile and
happiness in one setting may well be interpreted rather
differently in another context" [62, p. 603]. Still, articles also
suggested not allowing fear to thwart investigations of FRT.
"We should not let the fear of potential but inchoate threats to
privacy…deter us from using facial recognition where it can
produce positive benefits" [13, p. 103].
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The literature presents a robust, diverse, meaningful
conversation about the ethics of facial recognition technology.
However, relatively low average citations and field weighted
citation index scores of the literature show that we should pay
more attention to the subject matter and give it more regard. In
addition, few of the articles indicated acknowledgments or
conflicts of interest. This insight might show that we need to
improve reporting on FRT research and scholarship. It might
also mean that the conversation does not suffer from undue
influence from industry. However, given the importance of
having a well-rounded conversation that represents all
stakeholders, it might also be in the best interests of the
conversation to cultivate, include, and report more
collaborations between non-profits, universities, governments,
and industry partners.
The findings reveal important insights about the dimensions
of ethical thinking as it pertains to facial recognition. First, the
literature represented the business case for facial recognition
technology, as did the potential financial and economic
implications. The question persisted whether facial recognition
compromised consumer trust more so than it provided them
convenience. Second, it discussed the value of facial
recognition in school and health settings without discussing the
implications of maintaining and using visual data on minors
and other vulnerable populations such as students and patients.
Finally, the literature questioned the validity of media claims
about the benefits of facial recognition.
The issue of privacy dominated the discussion of social and
public deployment of facial recognition. The literature
presented several definitions of privacy that varied from setting
16
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
to setting--clinical vs. public vs. personal applications
presumed different definitions of public vs. private, as did
differences in international and multicultural applications.
Questions about the tradeoff between privacy and claims of
FRT increasing safety persisted.
Debates about privacy as an inherent value were also
complicated because privacy has legal definitions and
assurances. It may be the case that updates to legal definitions
and precedence on privacy and safety will evolve to complicate
matters further. In addition, hacking and other cybercrimes
expose the inherent vulnerability of digital technologies. Those
vulnerabilities, as well as regulations that poorly manage those
technologies, degrade public trust in them.
The plurality of ethical approaches emerged as part of the
problem. Different stakeholders held different perspectives.
Different perspectives assign different valuations and
definitions of privacy, freedom, safety, harm, and risk. It is
hard to form consensus and create guidelines and regulations
when stakeholders have different attitudes about the
trustworthiness of industry and government and the
vulnerabilities of FRT. In addition, legal and ethical questions
about the duration and nature of data ownership and consent
remain unresolved, core issues to ethical deliberations, insofar
as an initial opt-in might compromise and entangle users in
ways that make disentanglement and opt-outs difficult if not
impossible. Public, open debates are necessary for consensus-
building and policymaking.
When businesses, governmental agencies, and
organizations dominate the discussion about the ethics of facial
recognition, the conversation tends to abstract notions of
benefit, harm, safety, and risk. However, the technology itself
is implicitly personal, insofar as it creates calculations that can
identify the unique dimensions of a person's body and face.
Thus, the conversation often presumed that the algorithms
could surmise people's emotions and identity. However, the
unstated assumptions underpinning these principles and claims
are reductive. They assume that insights are generalizable and
consistent enough to trust in diagnoses of emotions and
medical conditions from facial characteristics. The literature
also posed concerns about these reductions, particularly since
the technology has generated more false positives and
negatives in vulnerable populations.
Furthermore, algorithms and machine learning are
deployed to make facial recognition more perceptive and
accurate. In that case, the algorithm itself makes ethical
decisions alongside its programmers and, eventually, perhaps
independently. This nonhuman autonomy adds another layer of
complexity in ethical and legal evaluations, especially when
the technology makes mistakes. We must assess the liability
and blame of nonhuman agents. Here, work on ethical
deliberation within actor networks might lend insight [64].
Adding nonhuman agents in the mix complicates how we
evaluate ethical dilemmas. Nonhuman agents are becoming
partners in decision-making. Because those decisions impact
humans, it raises the stakes of program integrity and quality
[64]. Developers can make explicit and transparent moral
judgments baked into the decision models that algorithms
manifest. They can design and execute code that mitigates
dangerous generalizations and moves toward empathy and
justice and make transparent the logic underpinning nonhuman
agent decision making. They can resist assumptions such as the
inevitability of bad action or social harm that would relinquish
their responsibility to interrogate and improve algorithm
generalizations and design.
Medicine, education, and law and order were the industries
most cited as ripe for facial recognition implementations. The
literature mentioned seemingly intuitive applications of facial
recognition in criminal profiling and disease diagnosis.
However, these industries very intimately affect people's lives
and livelihoods. Unfortunately, the literature offered more
hypothetical scenarios than generalizable evidence to anchor
claims about the harm, benefit, risk, and safety of facial
recognition. The opinions and scenarios included some positive
sentiment around benefits for business and finance and
negative sentiment around implications and handling of facial
recognition as it pertains to human factors such as emotions
and perception.
Most articles considered the consequences of FRT as key to
ethical decision-making. To help ensure ethical deployments,
the literature also most often talked about setting up rules and
policies, considering the circumstances of deployments, and
providing ethical training to developers and stakeholders. The
literature admitted that no one ethical approach could address
the complex problems that FRT presents. But it also urged the
importance of preserving and prioritizing open debate,
transparency, and human autonomy, particularly for the sake of
vulnerable populations. Thus, we must make FRT ethical
decisions transparent, collaborative, and human-centered.
Finally, consequentialism was the most common
philosophical framing of the ethics of FRT, and safety was
touted as one of its essential virtues. Therefore, future studies
should investigate the real-world benefits and harms of facial
recognition applications. Benefits and harms factored
prominently in consequentialist approaches to facial
recognition ethics. However, statements about FRT’s benefits
were anecdotal, more so than evidence-based or generalizable.
Since many of the studies framed the ethics of facial
recognition as situational and subjective, future studies should
further investigate public perception using qualitative and
quantitative methods. Furthermore, since much of the framing
gestured toward trusting the rules, the character of the
stakeholders, or the integrity of the algorithm itself, then future
studies should investigate evidence of regulatory compliance
and make more transparent calculations of industry
stakeholders and the algorithms themselves. Future work
should also outline frameworks for collaborative, open, and
transparent decision-making, and consensus-building between
all FRT stakeholders, including designers, executives,
politicians, government officials, and the public.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was sponsored by a research gift from the NEC
Foundation.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Methot, "Facial Recognition Market by Component (Software Tools
(2D Recognition, 3D Recognition, and Facial Analytics) and Services),
17
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Application Area (Emotion Recognition, Access Control, and Law
Enforcement), Vertical, and Region - Global Forecast to 2024," Markets
and Markets. July 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/facial-
recognition-market-995.html [Accessed Oct. 8, 2020].
[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), "NIST Study
Evaluates Effects of Race, Age, Sex on Face Recognition Software,"
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Dec. 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/NIST-study-
evaluates-effects-race-age-sex-face-recognition-software [Accessed Oct.
8, 2020].
[3] C. Maloney, "Facial Recognition Technology (Part 1): Its Impact on our
Civil Rights and Liberties," House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
May 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/facial-recognition-
technology-part-1-its-impact-on-our-civil-rights-and [Accessed Oct. 8,
2020].
[4] C. Maloney, "Facial Recognition Technology (Part II): Ensuring
Transparency in Government Use," House Committee on Oversight and
Reform. June 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/facial-recognition-
technology-part-ii-ensuring-transparency-in-government-use [Accessed
Oct. 8, 2020].
[5] C. Maloney, "Facial Recognition Technology (Part III): Ensuring
Commercial Transparency & Accuracy," House Committee on
Oversight and Reform. Jan. 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/facial-recognition-
technology-part-iii-ensuring-commercial-transparency [Accessed Oct. 8,
2020].
[6] Tropes. Semantic Knowledge. 2014. Available: https://www.semantic-
knowledge.com/tropes.htm [Available: May 30, 2021].
[7] M.V. Dias and L.P.L. Mercado, "An instrument for the assessment of
learning in online education from the content analysis," in 2016
International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), IEEE,
2016, pp. 1-6.
[8] P. Molette and A. Landré, Tropes, Version VF 8.4. [Software], 2014.
[9] Y.R. Tausczik and J.W. Pennebaker, "The psychological meaning of
words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods," Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, vol. 29, no. 1 (2010): 24-54.
[10] A.A. Adams and J.M. Ferryman, "The future of video analytics for
surveillance and its ethical implications," Security Journal, vol. 28, no. 3
(2015): 272-289.
[11] D. Avexander and J. Richert-Boe, "Ethics of Facial Recognition
Technology," Ethica Publishing, 2011. Available: https://bit.ly/3ijLD9t
[Accessed Oct. 8, 2020].
[12] N. Bacci, J. Davies, M. Steyn, and N. Briers, "Development of the Wits
Face Database: an African database of high-resolution facial
photographs and multimodal closed-circuit television (CCTV)
recordings," F1000Research 10, 2021.
[13] P. Brey, "Ethical aspects of facial recognition systems in public places,"
Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, no. 2, pp.
97-109, 2004.
[14] C. Castelluccia, D. Le Métayer, "Position Paper: Analyzing the Impacts
of Facial Recognition," in Annual Privacy Forum, New York:Springer,
Cham, 2020, pp. 43-57.
[15] D. Castelvecchi, "Is facial recognition too biased to be let loose?"
Nature, vol. 587, no. 7834, pp. 347-349, 2020.
[16] A. Cavoukian, M. Chibba, A. Stoianov, "Advances in biometric
encryption: Taking privacy by design from academic research to
deployment," Review of Policy Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 37-61, 2012.
[17] K. Crawford, "Halt the use of facial recognition technology until it is
regulated," Nature, vol. 572, no. 7771, pp. 565-566, 2019.
[18] B. Dieterle, "People As Data?: Developing an Ethical Framework for
Feminist Digital Research." Computers and Composition, vol. 59, 2021.
[19] Editors, “Facial recognition research needs an ethical reckoning,”
Nature, Nov. 18, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03256-7 [Accessed May
29, 2021].
[20] W. Espeland, V. Yung, "Ethical dimensions of quantification," Social
Science Information, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 238-260, 2019.
[21] M Esposito, J. Entsminger, L. Xiong, "A Manager's Introduction to A.I.
Ethics," in New Leadership in Strategy and Communication, N.
Pfeffermann, Ed., New York:Springer, Cham, 2020, pp. 81-92.
[22] S. Hongladarom. "Machine hermeneutics, postphenomenology, and
facial recognition technology," AI & SOCIETY, pp. 1-8, 2020.
[23] J. Hood, “Making the body electric: The politics of body-worn cameras
and facial recognition in the United States," Surveillance & Society, vol.
18, no. 2, pp. 157-169, 2020.
[24] L.D. Introna, "Disclosive ethics and information technology: Disclosing
facial recognition systems," Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 75-86, 2005
[25] T. Jarvis, D. Thornburg, A.M. Rebecca, and C.M. Teven, "Artificial
Intelligence in Plastic Surgery: Current Applications, Future Directions,
and Ethical Implications," Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global
Open, vol. 8, no. 10, 2020.
[26] S.A. Javadi, R. Cloete, J. Cobbe, M.S. Ah Lee, and J. Singh,
"Monitoring Misuse for Accountable'Artificial Intelligence as a
Service'," in Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on A.I., Ethics,
and Society, ACM, 2020, pp. 300-306.
[27] R. Jenkins, Z.I. Rentz, and K. Abney, "Big Brother Goes to School,"
Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, vol. 25, no. 1, 2021.
[28] K. Macnish, "Privacy in research ethics," Handbook of Research Ethics
and Scientific Integrity, pp. 233-249, 2020.
[29] N. Martinez-Martin, "What are important ethical implications of using
facial recognition technology in health care?" AMA Journal of Ethics,
vol. 21, no. 2 pp. E180, 2019
[30] M.D. McCradden, E. Patel, and L. Chad, "The point‐of‐care use of a
facial phenotyping tool in the genetics clinic: An ethics tête‐a‐tête,"
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, vol. 185, no. 2, pp. 658-
660, 2021.
[31] D. Mery, "Face Analysis: State of the Art and Ethical Challenges," in
Pacific-Rim Symposium on Image and Video Technology, New York:
Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 14-29.
[32] E. Mordini, and H. Ashton, "The transparent body: Medical information,
physical privacy and respect for body integrity," in Second Generation
Biometrics: The Ethical, Legal and Social Context, E. Mordini and D.
Tzovaras, Eds., pp. 257-283. New York:Springer, 2012.
[33] V. Nabbosa and C. Kaar, "Societal and Ethical Issues of Digitalization,”
in Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Big Data in
Management, 2020, pp. 118-124.
[34] V.L. Nabbosa, "Me Too: Value Creation by Digitalization and Data
Privacy," in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on E-
Education, E-Business, and E-Technology, 2020, pp. 20-24.
[35] I. Nesterova, "Mass data gathering and surveillance: the fight against
facial recognition technology in the globalized world," in SHS Web of
Conferences, vol. 74, EDP Sciences, 2020, pp. 03006.
[36] N.A. Pop, D. Dan-Cristian, and A.M. Iorga, "Ethical Considerations
Regarding Stakeholders in Neuromarketing Research Empirical Insights
from NMSBA Corporate Members, TAAN Advertising Agencies and
Romanian Companies," in Ethics and Neuromarketing, New
York:Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 123-146.
[37] I.D. Raji, T. Gebru, M. Mitchell, J. Buolamwini, J. Lee, and E. Denton,
"Saving face: Investigating the ethical concerns of facial recognition
auditing," in Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on A.I., Ethics,
and Society, 2020, pp. 145-151.
[38] I.D. Raji and J. Buolamwini, "Actionable auditing: Investigating the
impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial ai
products," in Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on A.I.,
Ethics, and Society, 2019, pp. 429-435.
[39] P. Rashidi, D.A. Edwards, and P.J. Tighe, "Primer on machine learning:
utilization of large data set analyses to individualize pain management,”
Current Opinion in Anesthesiology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 653-660, 2019.
[40] D.B. Resnik and K.C. Elliott, "Using drones to study human beings:
ethical and regulatory issues," Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 25,
no. 3, pp. 707-718, 2019.
18
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[41] L.A. Ricciardelli, S. McGarity, and L. Nackerud, "Social work
education and the recognition of rights in the digital tech age:
implications for professional identity," Social Work Education, pp. 1-15,
2020.
[42] E. Roberts, C. Troiano, and J.H. Spiegel, "Standardization of guidelines
for patient photograph deidentification," Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol.
76, no. 6, pp. 611-614, 2016.
[43] A. Rossi, "Resisting the rise of facial recognition," Nature, vol. 587, no.
7834, pp. 350-353, 2020.
[44] C.B. Sanders and J. Sheptycki, "Policing, crime and ‘big data’; towards
a critique of the moral economy of stochastic governance," Crime, Law
and Social Change, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1-15, 2017.
[45] E. Santow, "Emerging from A.I. Utopia." Science, vol. 368, no. 6486,
pp. 9, 2020.
[46] E. Seidenberg, J. Chuang, and D. Mulligan, "Designing commercial
therapeutic robots for privacy-preserving systems and ethical research
practices within the home," International Journal of Social Robotics,
vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 575-587, 2016
[47] S. Serholt, W. Barendregt, A. Vasalou, P. Alves-Oliveira, A. Jones, A.
Petisca, and A. Paiva, "The case of classroom robots: teachers’
deliberations on the ethical tensions," AI & Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp.
613-631, 2017.
[48] T. Sharon and B.J. Koops, "The ethics of inattention: revitalising civil
inattention as a privacy-protecting mechanism in public spaces," Ethics
and Information Technology, pp. 1-13, 2021.
[49] P. Skeba and E.P.S. Baumer, "Informational Friction as a Lens for
Studying Algorithmic Aspects of Privacy," Proceedings of the ACM on
Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 4, no. CSCW2, pp. 1-22, 2020.
[50] M. Smith and S. Miller, "The ethical application of biometric facial
recognition technology," AI & Society, pp. 1-9, 2021.
[51] S. Tanwar, S. Tyagi, N. Kumar, and M. S. Obaidat, "Ethical, legal, and
social implications of biometric technologies," in Biometric-based
physical and cybersecurity systems, M. S. Obaidat, I. Traore, et al., Eds.,
New York:Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 535-569.
[52] M. Trim, "Essentialism is the enemy of the good," Acm Sigcas
Computers and Society, vol. 49, no. 2, 2021.
[53] J. Tromp, C. Le, B. Le, and D.N. Le, "Massively multi-user online social
virtual reality systems: ethical issues and risks for long-term use," in
Social Networks Science: Design, Implementation, Security, and
Challenges, New York:Springer Cham, 2018, pp. 131-149.
[54] R. Van Noorden, "The ethical questions that haunt facial-recognition
research,” Nature, vol. 587, no. 7834, pp. 354-358, 2020.
[55] R. Van Noorden, "What scientists really think about the ethics of facial
recognition research." Nature, 2020.
[56] V. Wati, K. Kusrini, H. Al Fatta, and N. Kapoor, "Security of facial
biometric authentication for attendance system," Multimedia Tools and
Applications, pp. 1-22, 2021
[57] J. Wickins, "The ethics of biometrics: the risk of social exclusion from
the widespread use of electronic identification,” Science and
Engineering Ethics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 45-54, 2007.
[58] D.P. Williams, "Fitting the description: historical and sociotechnical
elements of facial recognition and anti-black surveillance," Journal of
Responsible Innovation, pp. 1-10, 2020.
[59] J. Winter, "Algorithmic discrimination: Big data analytics and the future
of the Internet," in The Future Internet, New York:Springer, Cham,
2015, pp. 125-140.
[60] M.I. Zarkasyi, M.R. Hidayatullah, and E.M. Zamzami, "Literature
Review: Implementation of Facial Recognition in Society," in Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1566, no. 1, New York:IOP Publishing,
2020, p. 012069.
[61] S. Yoo, "Ads Are Watching You: Advertising Applications of Facial
Recognition Technology and Communication Ethics," in Ethical Issues
in Communication Professions, M. Drumwright, Eds., New
York:Routledge, 2013, pp. 264-274.
[62] N. Grandjean, M. Cornélis, and C. Lobet-Maris, "Sociological and
Ethical Issues in Facial Recognition Systems: Exploring the Possibilities
for Improved Critical Assessments of Technologies?" In 2008 Tenth
 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, IEEE, 2008, pp. 602-
606.
[63] D. Liu, D. Cheng, T.T. Houle, L. Chen, W. Zhang, and H. Deng,
"Machine learning methods for automatic pain assessment using facial
expression information: protocol for a systematic review and meta-
analysis." Medicine, vol. 97, no. 49. 2018.
[64] A.K. Roundtree. "ANT Ethics in Professional Communication: An
Integrative Review," American Communication Journal, vol. 22, no. 1,
2020.

19

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Westminster. Downloaded on October 17,2022 at 06:10:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.