Biometrics Institute calls for clearer FRT standards in Australia

Australia’s current guidance on facial recognition lacks clear definitions, nuance and risk differentiation when it comes to different applications, which represents a “significant regulatory oversight,” according to experts gathered by the Biometrics Institute.

The country is currently in the process of regulating the use of facial recognition technology (FRT). In December, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published a guide to assessing the privacy risks of the technology in commercial settings, while in July the Office added it to its list of regulatory priorities.

On Thursday, the international organization released a members’ viewpoint paper, addressing what it calls inconsistencies in how FRT is regulated and perceived by the public. The paper was compiled in preparation for a July workshop between the Biometrics Institute and OAIC on the topic of using facial recognition in retail and commercial spaces.

The organization highlights what it terms a “digital double standard,” noting that “recording someone’s face digitally in public spaces is not only acceptable but ubiquitous,” yet consent requirements emerge when the same technology is used for real-time security.

Members questioned why reversible digital photographs face fewer restrictions than biometric templates that are “near impossible to reverse-engineer.”

The paper also addressed differences in how human versus automated recognition is treated.

“A security guard can scan faces against a mental database of known troublemakers, banned individuals, or persons of interest without anyone questioning the need for consent,” says the paper. “Yet when a machine performs the same task with superior accuracy, consistency, and without the potential for human bias or fatigue, suddenly we require explicit consent.”

FRT has applications beyond surveillance, with the technology increasingly used for compliance and safety-enhancing technologies, says the paper.

“A spade is a tool. It can be used to plant a tree, or it can be used to cause harm,” says Biometric Institute CEO Isabelle Moeller. “What matters is not the tool itself, but how it is used, and for what purpose.”

The organization also raised concerns about watchlist governance, noting there was little public transparency around how individuals are added to or removed from watchlists, and calling for “independent oversight and clear governance structures.”

The Institute also proposed standardized signage for FRT use in public spaces.

The Biometrics Institute gathers over 200 membership organisations from 43 countries, including banks, airlines, government agencies, biometric experts, privacy experts, suppliers, and academics. It has recently published an invitation to industry professionals to participate in its 16th annual survey.

Article Topics

Australia  |  biometrics  |  Biometrics Institute  |  facial recognition  |  regulation  |  responsible biometrics  |  standards