Use of Facial Recognition Technologies

Student’s Name:

Affiliation:

Course:

Instructor:

Date:

Abstract

Advancement in technologies has helped humans realized various goals in life. The use of facial recognition technologies has enabled the enforcement agents to capture evidence for investigating criminal activities. This has been an efficient tool for promoting crime deterrence in society. Contrary, these technologies have raised issues over racial profiling, brutality, and wrongful arrest by law enforcement agencies. The move to see the ban on using these technologies gained momentum following the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota. Ever since large data companies and states are progressively formulating acts that would see them rolling out of the federal government provides. Different countries have developed various statutes such as in Illinois, which provide a chance of suing the perpetrator if they fail to follow necessary guidelines in obtaining information. Texas should focus on maintaining its security through FRT; these would give the enforcement authority the power to conduct an investigation that would help identify people living in the states illegally.

Facial Recognition Technologies

The use of face recognition has gain popularity in the past few years. Different states and law enforcement agents view face recognition as a tool for unmasking criminal activities. Notably, incorporating these recognition technologies to enhance locating and even underline various incidences of illegal activities. Ideally, the most crucial technologies that have raised heated debate are license plate readers and facial recognition technologies. Different advancement in facial recognition technology comes with significant advantages, particularly for civilians. Significantly, they improve people’s safety in the streets as investigation bodies can easily follow-up suspects of a given crime (Wright, 2018). Real-time FRT can provide the police departments with relevant information to help deter terrorism, help identify subjects, and recognize mentally ill people or some critical aspects requiring some urgency. Lack of efficient regulation has led to many states considering blocking facial recognition technologies in combating criminal activities.

Uncontrolled use of facial recognition technologies has prompted different states and organizations to question their efficiency in monitoring criminal activities in the community. In Seattle, private organizations have formed a joint effort to undermine the use of real-time FRT in their operations. An elegant example is Microsoft’s move; the corporation had decided to call off technologies sales to allow the federal government to control how various departments employ the technology. Facial recognition technologies have increased incidences of racial profiling and police brutality.

Big firms such as Amazon and IBM protested over the use of RT-FRT in opposition to the current incidence of brutality and exposure civilians to racial profiling. Although Microsoft has decided to avoid selling technology to the police department, some states, through backed legislation, further continue the use these technologies. Notably, Microsoft would continue with the Californian police department services if they agree to implement technology under strict follow up. The uproar following the killing of an unarmed George Floyd has led to the belief that there is a need to revive the police department to avoid the emergence of violent cases. Not only do they use face recognition technology to provide a platform for harassment of civilians, but they also offer an opportunity for wrongful arrest. The video-image that emerges with FRT could lead to capturing images that closely resemble a given person, and lack of enough evidence may see that person getting into custody.

Critical evidence shows that different states have enacted various statutes that limit the use of body cameras. For instance, there is a heated debate on ending the use of FRT in Oregon; the city council at Portland will be discussing using the technology. There are some expectations that the boards will discontinue its use among the police in the states. Other states, including Oakland, Somerville, California, and San Francisco, terminated RFT use by city agents. The other States which have recent record moves include Seattle’s police department, which ended their service last year.

States government can formulate and enact laws that provide for the provision of services in the society. Significantly, the approach matters depending on their urgency and the outcry of the community. The state of Hampshire, Oregon, and recently California become some of the States that have prohibited the formulation and enforcement of the law regarding facial recognition technologies. Illinois enacted a law that allows civilians to sue organizations and firms that require finger prints, retina scans, and facial recognition technologies. Texas and Washington have similar provisions like Illinois; their laws do not provide for private suits.

The move to criminalize facial recognition technology has raised concern over the past few years, with the killing of George Floyd being the latest case. The alarming rates of police brutality have seen many states focusing on withdrawing the use of these technologies to promote safe handling of suspects by a police officer. In line with different States, representatives’ house has received a reform bill concerning the ongoing protest on racial profiling. The house of representatives will shape how the police department will embrace the use of these technologies. Besides, this will act as an approach to enhancing people’s security while in respective states.

In Washington, DC, facial recognition came to a halt after an uproar from the civilians. Most people have cited excessive use of power and wrongful arrest by the police, which cost people their freedom and money in bonds. The senior legislative counsel based in Washington DC highlighted that facial recognition technologies lack proper algorithm to capture darker skin tones (Simonite, 2020). The counsel further indicated that the department would consider using the technologies if the central aspect of liberty is paramount. The proposed bill not only focuses on Washington but also on other states.

The tabled bill requires that police depart to advocate for better technologies such as body-worn cameras or cameras mounted on their vehicle to help them capture criminal activities. The provisions in the proposed bills coming from various states further require the department to secure a warrant to employ facial recognition bodycam footage (Simonite, 2020). Notably, the officers involved must present their ideas logically to convince the judge of technology’s importance in unmasking crime or enhancing the ongoing investigation.

The move to have facial recognition technology scrapped off from the police department raises concerns over their use as they evaluate data from other technologies (Simonite, 2020). The technology has been crucial in safeguarding the business. Most of the information regarding criminal activities come from private firms and institutions. With these technologies help, they get to understand the proprietors of illegal activities in their neighborhood. Most lawmakers seek to establish some coherent facial recognition technologies for use by the businesses and enforcement agents. The current facial recognition technologies applied in states lack standardization, with some states lacking issues to present against the technologies. In line with racial profiling, brutality, and wrongful arrest, facial recognition, particularly in protests and political rallies, interferes with the first amendments’ provision. People may use these technologies to spread hatred and instill fear into others over their rights to participate in demonstrations and activities involving airing their grievances.

A handful of cities in various states have put up a ban on the use of FRT since 2019. This year, most states’ legislative bodies have seen the importance of enacting these laws to regulate its use. Notably, ten States have tabled bills focusing on the regulation of facial recognition software. There is heightened demand in Washington, notably Seattle, due to the efforts made by Amazon and Microsoft in overseeing the scraping of the technologies (Johnson, 2020). Lawmakers in Washington have focused on jointly supporting the implementation of the Washington state privacy act, also known as SB6281. Enactment of the show would require a concise follow-up on data privacy and the imposition of meaningful human review to justify the use of RFT in the social and private sectors.

Maintain the privacy of individuals is crucial in promoting liberty in the united states. The use of facial recognition technologies brought in an aspect of promoting individual photos for criminal activities screening. In Illinois, problems have emerged where the biometric information privacy act (BIPA) had initially curtailed on all forms of gathering and promoted the FRT use without involving parties (Germain, 2020). The company had implemented software on various devices and had acquired clear images of more than half a million individuals without their knowledge. The company was scheming and obtained its data from special occasions such as a wedding, graduation. To control the outcry, the state government at Illinois provided information regarding the use of FRT and incidences, where people can sue enforcement agencies (Germain, 2020). First, the law’s provision requires that individuals should consent to participate in any interrogation requiring the use of facial recognition technologies. The legal requirement further highlights some technologies that people may employ rather than FRT to obtain data from participants or suspects (Germain, 2020). According to BIPA, violation of privacy is a matter of significant concern, and under these provisions, people can sue the organization. Therefore, organizations such as creative AI are liable to questioning the presentation of claims following dissatisfaction by society members.

According to Collin (2020), some states have passed the ESSB 6280 to control FRT use in urban settings. States have the obligation of implementing the various provisions of the enacted law. Conversely, states may decide to enforce their choice of regulations depending on how effective they can restoring social order. ESSB 6280 aims at promoting the independence of States in the use of facial recognition technologies by enabling them to discover the potential benefits and the disadvantages. Based on a utilitarianism approach, the government should consider if it is logical or illogical to implement such technologies. The Act predominantly focuses on the facial recognition services; the Act, however, does not contradict or violate the provisions of the public recording act (PRA). Therefore, redact the footage would a bleach on the provided laws and could attract a penalty.

Washington will require its enforcement agencies to comply with the statute’s provision to promote citizens’ privacy and defending them against profiling and police brutality. In an attempt to discontinue the use of FRT, cities embraced Community Control Over Police Surveillance Ordinance. The ordinance enables towns in different states to formulate laws that will allow them to roll out from these technologies. This approach has helped cities quit ban the use while other cities are working towards adopting statutes that do not favor FRT. Although states may have some form of sovereignty in addressing facial recognition technologies, there is some limitation as there is no revocation of federal government act authorizing the use of FRT.

The current border issue in Texas continues to interfere with local and federal government activities. Besides, illegal immigration poses a danger to state security as this would be an efficient route for terrorists and smugglers. Texas should concern implementing facial recognition technologies by enforcement agents; this would be a practical approach toward eliminating illegal immigration. The technology would help capture people’s detail from Mexico into the united states legally or illegally. Implementation of FRT protects our people from external forces: this should entail accessing details of immigrants living in Texas and those entering the country. Besides, there should be a comparison to identify any fake document from the state department of immigration.

References

Collins, F. (2020). MRSC – New Regulations for the Use of Facial Recognition Technology. Mrsc.org. Retrieved 29 September 2020, from http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/June-2020/New-Regulations-for-Use-of-Facial-Recognition-Tech.aspx.

Germain, T. (2020). Why Illinois Has Become a Battleground for Facial Recognition Protection. Consumer Reports. Retrieved 29 September 2020, from https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/why-illinois-has-become-a-battleground-for-facial-recognition-protection/.

Johnson, K. (2020). From Washington State to Washington, D.C., lawmakers rush to regulate facial recognition. VentureBeat. Retrieved 29 September 2020, from https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/19/from-washington-state-to-washington-dc-lawmakers-rush-to-regulate-facial-recognition/.

Simonite, T. (2020). A Bill in Congress Would Limit Uses of Facial Recognition. Wired. Retrieved 29 September 2020, from https://www.wired.com/story/bill-congress-limit-uses-facial-recognition/.

Wright, E. (2018). The future of facial recognition is not fully known: Developing privacy and security regulatory mechanisms for facial recognition in the retail sector. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ, 29, 611.