Fleming 1

Leah Fleming

Dr. Harrow

WIFYS 106 02

3 Dec. 2015

Facial Recognition Technology: When Privacy is No Longer a Possibility

We’ve all been asked that question as a child: what do we want to be when we grow up?

It’s typical for kids to want to make a difference in the world as doctors, nurses, fire fighters,

veterinarians, teachers, or astronauts. Sometimes children want to have powers like those of their

favorite superhero, or extreme skills and capabilities of a ninja. The occupations that I often

wanted as a child changed frequently according to what friends I had, how old I was, or what TV

shows I watched. However, I distinctly remember that at one point in my childhood I had wanted

to be a spy. Having watched the “Spy Kids” movies and having seen all the gadgets and

futuristic devices that the spies used in their missions, I wrote on my wish list that I wanted a spy

kit for Christmas. I wanted to be able to walk in the dark using night vision goggles, send secret

messages through walkie talkies, and record the conversations of my parents and siblings without

them knowing. However, today’s spy gadgets can be used for more dreadful consequences, such

as stalking, giving exposure to an individual’s Facebook profile, personal information, and even

a prediction of their social security number.

Google’s new invention, the “Google Glass Headset,” uses facial recognition technology

and an app called “Name Tag,” to allow users to identify unfamiliar people in open areas by

looking up their social media profile (Dormehl 22). Although this technology is not available to

the public, Dr. Joseph Atick, one of the main contributors to the invention of facial recognition

technology, is troubled that his invention may lead to misconduct and offensive behavior, such as

Fleming 2

stalking (Singer 1). Additionally, while facial recognition is not extensively used by the public,

experts predict that its use will be prevalent in the near future, which raises major concerns over

the privacy of Americans. Thus, it is necessary that regulations and policies are established so

that the potential for societal misconduct caused by facial recognition technology can be avoided,

and that the privacy of all Americans is protected.

How Facial Recognition Technologies Operate. Facial recognition technology is extremely

simple to use, and is also relatively cheap. First, a photo of an individual must be obtained either

by using a common video camera, digital camera, or cell phone camera. After a picture is taken,

facial recognition software creates a facial map that contains data about the individual’s facial

features. For example, the distance between a person’s eyes and ears, or the length of their nose

can be used to create this facial map, or “faceprint” (Adams). This faceprint is then run through a

facial recognition software or biometric database which uses an algorithm to match that facial

print to photos that are online or in a database (Sobel 1C). This creates an avenue for these facial

recognition users to uncover data and personal information about their persons of interest, for

example their name, address, phone number, etc (see figure 1).

Valuable Applications of Facial Recognition. Although the use of facial recognition technology

can easily be abused and can lead to dreadful consequences, facial recognition technology also

generates several benefits. Instead of typing in pins and passcodes to unlock a phone or use an

ATM, an individual may be able to take a selfie to unlock their phone, or be recognized by facial

recognition software instead of using a pin (Dormehl 22). Facebook, a social networking

website, has one of the largest biometric databases that uses facial recognition software to

automatically identify a friends in a user’s photo. Two hundred and fifty billion photos have

already been uploaded to Facebook, with three hundred and fifty million additional photos

Fleming 3

uploaded every day (Sobel 1C). However, I find it quite concerning that Facebook possesses a

software that is more accurate than that of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Facebook’s facial

recognition software known as “DeepFace” has an accuracy rate of 97.25 percent, while the

database used by the FBI is merely 85 percent accurate (Sobel 1C).

Commercial businesses are also starting to use facial recognition as a form of

advertisement. For example, in the movie “Minority Report,” Tom Cruise walks through a

shopping mall where cameras and facial recognition technology identify his character in order to

display holographic advertisements that are personalized according to his interests (Dormehl 22).

Of course, this kind of advanced technology is not yet reality, however it very well may be in the

near future due to the advancements of facial recognition. Several commercial companies are

already experimenting with facial recognition and its ability to identify the age and gender of

customers so that personalized ads and deals can be displayed to prospective buyers (Dormehl

22). Dormehl, an author who focuses on technology, is certain that “although the use of facial

recognition tools is still relatively new in the consumer sector, that is where much of the visible

innovation will take place over the coming years” (22). If facial recognition’s use becomes more

prevalent in the commercial sector, its use will also become more common in the government

and private sector as well.

In addition to the use of facial recognition in the commercial sphere and on social media

sites, facial recognition is widely used in governmental and law enforcement agencies. Dr. Atick

stated that he assisted in the invention of facial recognition technology because he wanted to help

law enforcement track down criminals and prevent identity fraud (Singer 1). Identification

photos, such as a photo on a driver’s license, can be entered into a database in order to see if any

other individuals are using that photo as a form of identity theft (Jeffries). Facial recognition

Fleming 4

could also be used to identify suspects, or even terrorists (Dormehl 22). The Mobile Offender

Recognition and Information System, also known as “MORIS,” is a facial recognition software

that is used by law enforcement agencies “…to identify people through facial recognition

technology, iris scans, and fingerprints” (Lochner 202). Law enforcement officers use MORIS

by connecting the facial recognition program onto an iPhone, which allows them to search

biometric databases even when working outside of the office.

Facial Recognition’s Potential for Misuse. Even though facial recognition technology is not used

by the average person, three researchers showed the public how easily this technology can be

abused. In 2010 and 2011, Alessandro Acquisti, Ralph Gross, and Fred Stutzman from Carnie

Mellon University used facial recognition to identify users on a dating website in Chapel Hill,

North Carolina. The researchers used facial recognition software and the users’ profile pictures

to match their facial features to photos they had uploaded to Facebook (Klarreich 18). These

three researchers conducted a second experiment in which they used an ordinary digital camera

and a standard facial recognition software to identify about a third of the students on Carnegie

Mellon University’s Campus (Champagne). Not only did they identify the college students, but

the researchers were able to find their Facebook profiles and 16 of their social security numbers

(Klarreich 18). Along with their research, the professors created an app through which a name

and prediction of a social security number could be exposed simply by using a picture that an

individual uploaded to the cloud (Klarreich 09). The fact that these professors used standard

technologies, such as an average facial recognition software and digital camera, to obtain

confidential information is entirely frightening.

With the invention and spread of facial recognition technology, there is no doubt that

privacy and security concerns will surface due to its likelihood of exploitation. There are many

Fleming 5

factors that contribute to its misuse, the first being that an individual is not required to give

consent before becoming a victim of facial recognition technology. This occurs for many

reasons, the first being that this technology can be used on an individual from a distance

(Dormehl 22). Brian Martin, the director of biometric research at MorphoTrust USA, stated that

cameras are using higher resolutions which allows images to be clearer, and computers are able

process the images faster and more accurately (Spencer 1D). He argues that this is beneficial,

because facial recognition technologies are making fewer errors, however this also means that

those who inappropriately use facial recognition technology will be able to obtain pictures more

easily and receive more accurate results. Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of Georgetown

University’s center on privacy and technology, had to scroll through a long list of terms and

conditions that had been sent by email in order to discover Facebook’s policies on facial

recognition technology (Adams). Bedoya believes that this should not be the case, rather “‘facial

recognition is one of those categories of data where a very prominent and a very clear consent is

necessary” (Adams). Bedoya is not the only expert who feels this way. The U.S. National

Telecommunication and Information Administration brought in several privacy advocates in

order to negotiate terms and policies that would give Americans adequate protection from facial

recognition technology. However, before negotiations were met, the nine advocates walked out

of the meeting because they felt that “‘at a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a

public street without fear that companies they’ve never heard of are tracking their every

movement- and identifying them by name- using facial recognition technology” (“NTIA Talks

on Facial Recognition” 3). Jennifer Lynch, an attorney for the Electrical Frontier Foundation,

recognized that “it’s very rare for a fingerprint to be collected without your knowledge,” so why

would it be ok for an individual’s private information to be exposed, using facial recognition,

Fleming 6

without their knowledge (Adams)? Negotiations need to be made so that its use is not completely

eliminated, yet Americans can feel secure with the amount of privacy they have.

It is very convenient that facial recognition may eliminate the need for memorizing pin

codes and passwords by using facial recognition to perform a transaction on an ATM or to

unlock a cell phone. Passwords and pin codes are able to be hacked into, which is why facial

recognition is very secure when used for security purposes because facial features cannot be

easily altered (Sobel 1C). However, Friedersdorf claims that with the widespread use of facial

recognition technology, a functioning member of society would have to wear a mask if they

wanted to avoid facial recognition technology while continuing their daily routine (B). Jim

Spencer, a writer of the Star Tribune voiced that with the extensive use of facial recognition

technology, “… the concept of anonymity- being a mere face in the crowd- disintegrates” (1D).

It would be impossible for an individual to avoid being scanned by facial recognition technology

because it is a must for people to go about their daily activities and responsibilities (Lochner

218).

Law Enforcement’s Misuse of Facial Recognition Technology. It is also quite disturbing that

respected and dutiful law enforcement officials contribute significantly to the misuse of facial

recognition technology. As mentioned earlier, Joseph Atick is one of the main inventors who

contributed to the creation of facial recognition technology (Singer 1). Even he is concerned

about the methods in which facial recognition is used, for he had wanted this technology to aid in

finding criminals and preventing identity fraud, but he is fearful that commercial companies may

be acquiring facial data to give to the government without the consent of civilians (Singer 1). It is

true that facial recognition is being used as a way of preventing identity theft by using Id and

driver’s license photos, however, this often leads to large-scale surveillance of citizens (Jeffries).

Fleming 7

Jay Stanley, the senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, is riled that “‘…

some law enforcement agencies around the country turn the technology away from crime and

[are] using [it] to survey citizens’” (Jeffries). Policies that regulate facial recognition’s use will

help to alleviate its exploitation and use for the purpose of public surveillance.

As mentioned earlier, MORIS is a facial recognition software used by law enforcement

agencies, however, laws often do not regulate how facial recognition is used and there is no

federal law that regulates the use of MORIS; thus, its use is left to the discretion of each law

enforcement officer (Lochner 203-204). These officers are then able to store the personal

information of harmless citizens, without probable cause or suspicion, instead of identifying

criminals who are a danger to society (Lochner 224). Minnesota Senator Al Franken discovered

that the FBI was using facial recognition for identifying individuals who attended political rallies

and demonstrations rather than using their database strictly for criminals and terrorists (Spender

1D). Another example of the misuse of facial recognition by law enforcement agencies occurred

during Super Bowl XXV in 2001. Tampa police used a facial recognition device and software to

scan over the massive crowds in the stands and were able to identify fans and even some minor

offenders, all without their knowledge or consent (Singer 1). Even more terrifying is that “the

CEO of the vendor that supplies the government with facial-recognition technology once

bragged that his product has the capability to identify everyone in a football stadium in five

seconds” (Friedersdorf B). If advanced facial recognition technology is able to perform such a

complex and large-scale task within such a short amount of time, there is huge necessity for

concern.

Legality of Facial Recognition’s Use. Not only should ethics be discussed when it comes to

facial recognition technology, but the legality of its use should be addressed as well. Lochner

Fleming 8

summarizes that “the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from

unreasonable searches and seizures and requires probable cause before a judge can issue a

warrant” (209). This amendment was created in order to protect the privacy and dignity of one’s

own self. According to this amendment, taking a picture of an individual’s face is not a violation

because their face is out in the public, but regulations do restrict the photographer as to what can

be done with that photo (Lochner 231). However, no federal laws exist that limit or regulate the

use of facial recognition, which allows every individual to use their own ethics and morals to

decide how facial recognition technology is used (Singer 1). Nevertheless, “the [Supreme] court

did also hint that photographs revealing intimate details may be searches…” (Lochner 210). This

means that if using a facial map in order to expose personal information is considered as

“revealing intimate details,” then this practice is considered a search, and law enforcement would

be required to acquire consent, a warrant, or probable cause to use facial recognition on any

individual (Lochner 212). On the other hand, if facial recognition is not considered a search, then

anyone who goes out in public has the possibility of being scanned by facial recognition

technology (Lochner 218).

Bias as a Factor of Facial Recognition’s Use. The last major concern with the program MORIS

is that bias and human error may allow an individual to be wrongly identified. Because MORIS

narrows down the possible identities and does not provide an exact match of an individual to

their identity, a law enforcement officer is forced to make the final decision in choosing which

identity matches the individual’s facial features Due to a phenomenon known as the “other-race

effect,” where individuals of another race tend to look very similar than one’s own race, an

officer may easily choose the wrong identity and wrongly accuse an innocent civilian of a crime

(Lochner 219). Additionally, because the use of facial recognition is left up to an officer’s

Fleming 9

discretion, an officer may have bias towards a certain race and may be more likely to target

individuals of that race without probable cause (Lochner 218). Thus, not only should policies and

regulations be placed on facial recognition, but users should be educated on how to properly use

facial recognition technology as well.

Possible Solutions for Protecting Americans’ Privacy. It is essential to find the balance between

society’s use of facial recognition technology and the protection of American’s privacy by

asking if the use of facial recognition would be effective in increasing the well-being of society,

and if there is an even balance between the well-being of society and the privacy of Americans

(Friedersdorf B). Furthermore, despite that facial recognition technology does not yet play a key

role in society, the chancellor of the Texas State University System, Brian McCall, recognizes

that “‘legislation is seldom ahead of science, and in this case [he] felt it was absolutely necessary

that legislation get ahead of common practice, and in fact, [they] were concerned about how the

market would use personally identifiable information’” (Sobel 1C). In addition, these regulations

need to be put in place because Americans genuinely care about their privacy in relation to

personal information that is available online. For example, a study that was conducted by the

Allstate Insurance Company and the National Journal found that two-thirds of Americans feel as

if they have little to no control over the collection of their personal information, yet 89 percent of

Americans would support a law that would require Big Data companies, such as Facebook and

Google, to delete personal data if requested to do so (Price 913-914).

Privacy and public-policy manager Robert Sherman was quite certain that Facebook’s

use of facial recognition technology was rather obvious, however, Missouri state senator Al

Franken would blatantly disagree as he only discovered Facebook’s policies on facial recognition

after scrolling through six pages of Facebook’s terms and conditions (Champagne). Europe and

Fleming 10

Canada have already restricted Facebook’s tagging feature because of the privacy concerns, and

even Carl Szabo, the policy counsel for Big Data companies such as Facebook, Google, and

Yahoo, emphasized that the use and notices of facial recognition technology should be explicit

(Adams). Illinois requires that a Facebook user gives written consent before their tagging feature

is offered, however, regulations need to be placed at the federal level so that privacy policies can

be effective across the nation (Sobel 1C).

Dr. Atick also addresses regulations that should be enforced in relation to facial

recognition’s use in the commercial sphere. He suggests that commercial businesses place

notices and signs in areas where facial recognition technology is being used (Singer 1). He also

believes that a customer should be required to give consent, and the facial data that is collected is

simply used for the purpose that was consented by the customer (Singer 1). In 2001, Texas

established a law that would regulate commercial companies’ collection, storage, and use of

facial data (Sobel 1C). However, similar to the policies placed on Big Data companies, there is

no federal law that places restrictions on the commercial use of facial recognition technology.

Lastly, policies in relation to law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology are

lacking because the current self-regulatory model does not effectively protect Americans.

Policies should address the types of situations in which it is appropriate to use facial recognition

technology, and in what manners the facial data can be used and stored (Lochner 204). An

attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in California, Jennifer Lynch, believes that law

enforcement should have to obtain a warrant in order to collect facial data, and that the amount

of data collected should be limited in order to prevent the mass surveillance of Americans

(Champagne). Even if this policy wasn’t negotiated, the minimum requirement should be for an

officer to have probable cause or to suspect that an individual may be a criminal, in which case

Fleming 11

an officer should still be required to obtain consent. Additionally, officers should continue to use

facial recognition technology only in cases where an individual is a criminal, or does not have a

form of government- issued identification on their body (Lochner 230). In addressing the “other-

race effect,” law enforcement agencies need to require education so that officers are taught how

to compare facial features in photos, and how other-race bias may affect their decisions (Lochner

232). Additionally, in no circumstance should personal information be stored in a database that is

used for an officer’s personal use (Lochner 232).

Conclusion. In conclusion, although facial recognition technology is and will be beneficial in

several aspects of society, it raises major privacy concerns among experts and citizens alike. Any

individual who obtains facial recognition technology is able to identify an anonymous face using

social media profiles such as Facebook or LinkedIn. These social media profiles include personal

information about an individual including their date of birth, friends, and interests. This can also

lead to the exposure of more personal information such as their sexuality and social security

number. Conor Friedersdorf believes that the facial data of all Americans will be in a

government database within the coming decade (B). He then poses a question: “Want to keep

going about your life without your face giving away your identity? A mask may be your best

bet” (B). It is an absolute necessity for Americans to continue their daily lives, and in order for

Americans to maintain their right to privacy, federal policies and regulations need to be

established.

Fleming 12

Fig. 1. The use of facial recognition technology to retrieve personal information from Nektarios

Leontiadis; Data "Accretion" Digital image; CyBlog; Carnegie Mellon University CyLab, 11

Aug. 2011; Web; 13 Nov. 2015.

Fleming 13

Works Cited

Adams, Rachel. "Use of Facial-Recognition Tool Draws Privacy Concerns." Chicago Daily

Herald 2 Aug. 2015, Business sec.: n. pag. Paddock Publications, 2015. Web. 23 Oct.

2015.

Champagne, Denise M. "Does Your Face Reveal Too Much?" The Daily Record of Rochester 23

July 2012, Commentary sec.: n. pag. Dolan Media Newswires, 2012. Web.

Dormehl, Luke. "When Your Face No Longer Belongs to You." The Observer [England] 4 May

2014, Observer Review Discovery sec.: 22. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, 2014. Web.

Friedersdorf, Conor. "Face It, Anonymity on the Street Is History." Orange County Register

[California] 13 Nov. 2013, Local sec.: B. Orange County Register, 2013. Web.

Jeffries, Robb. "Is Facial Recognition the New Fingerprint?" Grand Forks Herald [North

Dakota] 30 June 2013, State and Regional News sec.: n. pag. Grand Forks Herald, 2013.

Web.

Klarreich, Erica. "Hello, My Name Is...: Facial Recognition and Privacy Concerns."

Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 57.8 (2014): 17-20. Web.

Lochner, Sabrina A. "Saving Face: Regulating Law Enforcement's Use of Mobile Facial

Recognition Technology & Iris Scans." Arizona Law Review 55 (2013): 201-34. Web.

"NTIA Talks on Facial Recognition Code of Conduct Failure." Biometric Technology Today

(2015): 2-3. Mayfield Press Ltd., July-Aug. 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

Price, Tom. "Big Data and Privacy." CQ Researcher 23.38 (2013): 909-32. Web.

Singer, Natasha. "Never Forgetting a Face." The New York Times 18 May 2014 late ed., Money

and Business/Financial Desk sec.: 1. The New York Times Company, 2014. Web.

Fleming 14

Sobel, Ben. "Facial Recognition Technology Is Spreading, and so Are Privacy Concerns." Los

Angeles Times 23 June 2015 home ed., Business: Business Desk sec.: 1C. Los Angeles

Times, 2015. Web.

Spencer, Jim. "They Can See Who You Are." Star Tribune [Minneapolis] 19 Aug. 2012, Metro

ed. Business sec.: 1D. Star Tribune, 2012. Web.