More statements, legislation but little progress on facial recognition rules

Time usually narrows the choices and possible outcomes that come with an important information technology, but that decidedly is not the case with facial recognition.

Even governments of the developed economies appear no more sure-footed with how best to use and manage the AI algorithms than they were five years ago. (If it’s better in the private sector it’s because most businesses deploying them have boldly decided just to wing it.)

A legislative effort in the United States to put “strong limits” on the use of facial recognition by law enforcement agencies is almost certainly doomed and years behind similar state laws that themselves have had mixed success.

Six Democrats in the Republican-dominated House have re-introduced the Facial Recognition Act. In it, they genuflect to the importance of algorithms for public safety but bemoan a lack of transparency and “reasonable limits,” which they say endanger civil liberties.

The bill, sponsored by California Congressman Ted Lieu, would significantly narrow the uses of facial recognition by police at the federal, state and local levels.

For the most part, it would prohibit its use without a warrant showing probable cause in an investigation involving a “serious violent felony.” Nor could a face match be the only reason to get a warrant.

Individuals could not be tracked using live or stored video, nor could individuals be targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights. They could sue an agency for violations.

In the United Kingdom and European Union, 15 civil society organizations have come out against the so-called Prüm II suspect data exchange, an expanded version of the current Prüm exchange. Each side is arguing their case with the same points lobbed back and forth for years.

Prüm, created in 2008, regulates cross-border searches and access to fingerprint and DNA biometric identifiers as well as vehicle registration.

If approved, Prüm II would open up the kind of data that can be shared. Signatories would have to allow access to other signatories to connect their face databases to cross-border police searches.

Libertarian non-profit civil rights advocate Statewatch and 14 other organizations and academics are insisting on more public debate about the expansion. Risks inherent in the UK’s facial recognition system grow larger when multiple states share the data, according to the group.

Article Topics

biometrics  |  Europe  |  facial recognition  |  legislation  |  police  |  Prüm  |  United States