The commercial use of facial recognition technology for security, access, marketing and customer service is rapidly growing. Privacy advocates argue that widespread use of the technology will allow businesses to identify and track almost anyone in public without their consent or even knowledge. Businesses argue that individuals should not expect complete privacy in public and that some loss of privacy is outweighed by the benefits technology offers consumers and businesses. Multiple privacy, government and industry organizations have listed “best practices” regarding the commercial use of biometric technology, but the recommendations are merely advisory and often conflict with each other.
Should businesses be required to obtain a person’s express consent before using facial recognition technology?
Yes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that while there might not be legal policy regarding this at of yet, there is definitely a precedent of at least asking for consent before scanning and recording someone's face for a database. For example, I unlock my bank app with my "FaceID" and it's incredibly convenient. I have a horrendous memory and this saves me from having to reset my password when I invariably forget it. But the app asked for my express permission before scanning my face. As I mentioned in my blog post comment on Friday, a person has the right to maintain a level of control over access to one’s body (in this case their face) and using facial recognition technology without express consent should be treated as an infringement of privacy.
Yes, business must be required before obtaining a persons facial scan of the individual. There are a few reasons for this. My major concern is not Big Brother. There is already a massive push for legislation for the US government to regulate the use of facial recognition technology. Rather, my large concern is the use of little brother. Facial technology presents a massive gap in privacy laws. If one business scans your face then another can use that database to match you. Without your knowledge businesses across the US can have major access to your information. This is wrong. As a business owner, the main goal is typically to make money. But sacrificing vital rights and virtues to do so is not only immoral but also dangerous. Arguably, large companies control more of a citizens life than the government in certain cases. I would argue that there should be a broader privacy law regarding facial technology concerning business to prevent a dangerous Technocratic version of capitalism. Perhaps I am a Luddite. But I believe that Capitalism and privacy are mutual rights and facial systems will damage both.
ReplyDeleteYes, consent should be obtained by businesses before using facial recognition technology. Individuals should have a right to their information personally deemed as private and who then has access to it. In general, it is quite common for applications, like banking and health portals, to request (ask for) access to use facial recognition, along with other ways to collect a person’s data. That then gives the user the right to decide whether they are comfortable with that. On the other hand, it is my understanding that department stores of many kinds will use facial recognition technologies to identify known or potential VIP’s, or shoplifters. However, is it possible for the technology to be flexible in the circumstance that a store’s customers may or may not consent to? In what ways could in-person stores be able to obtain every customer’s consent? In theory, businesses want to proactively stay steps ahead of shoplifters, which makes sense. A potential solution regarding the flexibility/gathering consent concerns may be to increase security features without the use of the facial recognition platforms. Businesses, whether physical or virtual, should obtain consent from its consumers before using facial recognition features.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteI think a large percentage of the population would be willing to consent to many business uses of facial recognition for additional convenience, as we can see with how widely TSA Precheck, biometric logins, etc. are used, so a lot of the utility to businesses would remain, and people should have the right to be informed about and consent to use of their personally identifying information.
A business (with the obvious exception of something like a reputable tax preparer) asking you to reveal your Social Security Number to use their services would appear obviously suspicious because it can be used to uniquely identify you, to impersonate you, and is tied to information you have a strong motivation to keep secure. Similar considerations apply to faceprints.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteThere are many legitimate usages of facial recognition that private businesses can take advantage of. These all come with trade-offs, however, so the decision should be in the hands of the customer not the business. And this is in the interest of the business as they benefit from a relationship of trust with their customers. There are plenty of examples of backlash when it comes out that a business was using a technology without the consent or knowledge of their customers.
Yes, I think that businesses should gain consent before using FRT. Although I agree that people in public shouldn't expect complete privacy while in public, I think that from the business's perspective, they should attempt to refrain from such actions. On a broader note, as we discussed today, the effort of consent is essential, for it was noted as the number one privacy issue that we have. Prioritizing this effort will broadcast light on transparent information, an attractive factor for society currently. By adding a variable of consent, I think that the other factors of privacy issues will be improved ever so slightly. This includes understanding the implied usage of data, who has access, and data security overall. Considering the frequency of FRT, I also think that by requiring consent, this will provide an essential safety net that will draw attention towards a more robust security network for authentication and identification needed for our evolving future. Securing regulation techniques now, before it gets worse, is the key to maintaining such obscure knowledge about consumers.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteAn example that comes to mind is the CLEAR program that works with TSA at American airports. It's a private company that collects your biometric data (faceID) to scan you when you go through airports, skipping the line. The fact that it's a private company is important here. If it was in charge of all airports and mandated a face scan of anyone traveling through an airport, that would be a problem. Also I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding or answering the question but I've been sick for days and I've been up since 4am with a crazy fever and I'm on all that sick meds. Just trying to get my work done since I can't sleep and feel icky.
No
ReplyDeleteWe are generally fine with businesses surveilling their own property, and I don't see how this is any different. There is a mutual exchange of consent when a person enters private property. The property owner consents to let them on the property, and the person entering consents to what the owner does with that property. Obviously, your individual agency, life, and property should be protected in these instances, but, unless we consider surveillance photos of people to be their property, I see no reason to treat them as such. Still, I don't mind the idea of people being notified of a business's use of FRT, and that notification would serve the same purpose as expressed consent from individuals.