Reconsidering the regulation of facial recognition in public spaces

Abstract

This paper contributes to the discussion on effective regulation of facial recognition technologies (FRT) in public spaces. In response to the growing universalization of FRT in the United States and Europe as merely intrusive technology, we propose to distinguish scenarios in which the ethical and social risks of using FRT are unattainable from other scenarios in which FRT can be adjusted to improve our everyday lives. We suggest that the general ban of FRT technologies in public spaces is not an inevitable solution. Instead, we advocate for a risk-based approach with emphasis on different use-cases that weighs moral risks and identifies appropriate countermeasures. We introduce four use-cases that focus on presence of FRT on entrances to public spaces (1) Checking identities in airports (2) Authorisation to enter office buildings (3) Checking visitors in stadiums (4) Monitoring passers-by on open streets, to illustrate the diverse ethical and social concerns and possible responses to them. Based on the different levels of ethical and societal risks and applicability of respective countermeasures, we call for a distinction of public spaces between semi-open public spaces and open public spaces. We suggest that this distinction of public spaces could not only be helpful in more effective regulation and assessment of FRT in public spaces, but also that the knowledge of different risks and countermeasures will lead to better transparency and public awareness of FRT in diverse scenarios.

Predicting human chronological age via AI analysis of dorsal hand versus facial images: A study in a cohort of Indian females

“…Facial images are often considered to be more sensitive than hand images because they are more directly linked to personal identity and can reveal more personal information about an individual, such as age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity and emotions 59 . As a result, the use of facial images in research may raise greater concerns about privacy and confidentiality, as well as the potential for stigmatisation or discrimination 60,61 . Hand images seem to be less sensitive than facial images and may be viewed as more impersonal or less revealing of personal identity.…”

“…59 As a result, the use of facial images in research may raise greater concerns about privacy and confidentiality, as well as the potential for stigmatisation or discrimination. 60,61 Hand images seem to be less sensitive than facial images and may be viewed as more impersonal or less revealing of personal identity. Thus, in some cases, they could be more appropriate for research.…”

Optimization Design Practice of Rural Public Space Based on Public Participation: Taking Jiaoyuan Village in Zhaoqing City as an Example

“…Currently, scholars have conducted extensive research on digital space. Sara Solarova discussed the feasibility of facial recognition technology and demonstrated the difference between semi open public spaces and open public spaces [1]. Rhiannon Stephanie Bettivia explored the relationship between digital public spaces and target groups, and then explored the tension generated by the integration of public spaces and digital culture.…”