FACIAL RECOGNITION
by [Name]
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date
Facial Recognition
Introduction
Technological advancement has played a crucial role in supporting various issues that have been problematic to society. One of the latest technological advancements has been facial recognition software. The technology has been applied in various situations to identify people, track movement amongst other measures that improve the complex area of security today. Some of the most notable uses of the technology are in airports, shopping centers, venues, and in law enforcement. The technology has had a significant advantage because of its identification efficiency, which has many applications in different settings, including solving crimes. Nonetheless, it has raised a contentious debate concerning its application in different settings. For instance, some opponents of the technology have cited issues such as legislation, safety, and price regarding the technology’s application.
Facial recognition technology applies a database of images, including drivers’ licenses and mugshots, to identify people. The technology applies biometrics that map facial features that are predominant in an individual. One of the most notable features is the geometry of the face. Concisely, the technology is dependent on factors such as the distance from the chin to the forehead and between the eyes[1]. Accordingly, this creates a facial signature applied in different situations where the identification of an individual is required. Succinctly, the facial signature refers to a mathematical formula that is used in the comparison of known faces. The main reason for concern among European nations is that there are no guidelines on how the technology should be applied[2]. Most of the people are worried that the technology could not be accurate and could be associated with other biases, which may incorporate misinformation. For example, there have been major issues associated with the identification of people from different racial backgrounds, with the most affected being individuals with dark complexions. Therefore, issues associated with the emergent identification technology present legal and policy challenges among different members of the society.
One of the regions that have seen enhanced debate about facial recognition in Europe. On this note, the European Parliament has introduced the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has been essential in ascertaining that individual privacy rights are protected. In this regard, the GDPR is primarily concerned with how companies should ensure that the private information of their clients is protected from misuse and abuse by unauthorized third parties. The European parliament has been looking into possible amendments to the laws that regulate the application of facial recognition[3]. According to the new laws of the GDPR introduced in 2018, people would have the right to be informed when facial recognition data is used[4]. However, there are exceptions that are tightly circumscribed to ascertain that the data is used appropriately. On this note, the GDPR has been influential in ensuring that private information about Europeans should be shared with the individuals.
GDPR can be simply stated to be the world’s stringent rules regarding the protection of data. The 2018 GDPR replaced the former 1995 data protection directive that had lost its relevance. The final GDPR was executed after four years of meetings, and nations were afforded the freedom to make alterations that fit their needs. GDPR is concerned with the collection of all personal information, from the basic ones such as names, their location, and their internet usernames, and detailed data such as IP address. However, GDPR is only concerned with a few sets of data including genetic and biometric data, race and ethnic origin, political opinions, membership of trade unions, religious beliefs, health information, and records regarding a person’s sex life or orientation.
According to the GDPR, facial recognition is a biometric data under the special category of personal data. The European Union acknowledges that the data is a result of the technical processing of behavioral, physiological, and physical characteristics. One of the defining legal implications of facial recognition is that some individuals have not been consulted when some entities[5]. On this note, it is essential to note that the European Union has enacted legislation that requires the use of such information to have the explicit consent of the person. The
Use of Facial Recognition in the European Union
In the past few decades, Europe has undergone various social and political changes that require the introduction of new perspectives of life. On this note, security is one of the crucial issues that have affected the continent[6]. Major European cities have been targets of terrorist attacks, which has resulted in the deaths of many people and damage to infrastructure and property. Concisely, security in the continent has faced various challenges because of extremist behaviors[7]Blue color crimes have also increased, and people have accessed the private information of their victims through the use of forged documents and identity. Succinctly, security issues have led to the need for new technologies to improve security in various settings.
Although the priority should be the privacy of the individuals, national security is an important aspect. On this note, the continent has been the target of numerous terror attacks. One of the emerging trends on terrorism in Europe is that the mentors of terrorists are usually members of the community with a profound influence on their followers who brainwash them and encourage them to harm innocent people[8]. Facial recognition is essential because it seeks to ensure that suspected terrorists who influence perpetrators to harm the public are identified. Once a perpetrator has been arrested, facial recognition can be used in identifying the areas most frequented. Consequently, law enforcement agencies have the opportunity of identifying other potential terrorists through facial recognition and conduct active investigations. Hence, facial recognition should also be used as a technology that will enhance the ability of the government to safeguard the safety of the citizens and ensure that threats to national security are handled in an ideal manner.
One of the strategies that the governments have used is the introduction of facial recognition technologies. The technology is made available to relevant stakeholders to ensure that they are aware of the people they are serving without relying on documents. However, the organizations that have been entrusted with this information have not been ethical in its usages. Tersely, some of the companies have been using the technology to send information to marketers in order to target a particular group of people. Therefore, the European Union has the intention of ensuring that facial recognition is used ethically, particularly by vendors who may seek to profit illegally through infringing on the rights of the Europeans.
There are some agencies exempt from the regulations associated with using information derived from facial recognition. On this note, law enforcement agencies have been given the authority to use the power to use to apprehend criminals. The use of mugshots to identify suspected criminals is allowed because the primary goal of the European Union is to ensure the safety of the citizens[9]. However, facial recognition has also been used illegally by law enforcement agencies to infringe on the rights of people to privacy. Precisely, most of the organizations in the criminal justice system have used the information to pry into private information about the suspect. However, this is not warranted by the European parliament. In this regard, there is a need to ensure that even though there are some exemptions to the ethical approaches of using facial recognition technology.
Some of the crucial responsibilities that organizations are expected to undertake in data collection are integrity and confidentiality. General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (EU) 2016/679 states that personal data should be protected against unauthorized processing and use and should not be damaged or lost[10]. Firms that collect these geometrical data should ensure there is no data breach through accidental leakage or any other form of access by hackers. However, the problem with the above GDPR requirement is that it does not specify how a security system should look like on the account that different organizations have varying needs and capacities[11]. The argument backs the lack of precision in the form of security that a bank is capable of having a complex system, while a retail store in a locality will not. However, the vagueness leaves a gap that predisposes private information to the members of the public. An example is the case of the Cathay Pacific Airways, which was found to expose the information of its clients by applying necessary security measures. The organization was fined £500,000, which is a corrective and not preventive measure.
GDPR Principles to be applied in Facial Recognition
GRDP consists of 7 fundamental principles. The principles are ‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency; purpose limitation; data minimization; accuracy; storage limitation; integrity and confidentiality (security); and accountability[12] Savic and Venovic explain that the role of General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is harmonizing or coordinating the rules that exist in different EU states into one so that there are few legal fragmentations. The regulations created by the GDPR are not only meant for personal geometric identification but the field of data collection in general, including research[13]. In these fields that the collection of data is essential; the protection of this information is crucial. Therefore, the GDPR offers a neutral technologically sustainable measure that will be adopted by data collecting, such as facial recognition regardless of their country of origin or whether they are working independently, for an organization. These regulations dictate the process of collecting, exploiting, and the storage of data.
Other than accountability, a majority of the data in the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (EU) 2016/679 is a development or is built from the existing security data, but only enhanced and harmonized. The accountability clause requires that an organization ought to clarify the measures that are undertaken to conform to the other principles in the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (EU) 2016/679[14]. Firms ought to document their process of handling data and their protective measures. Under the principles, firms are expected to undertake staff training in the management of data and continuously evaluating the competitiveness of their security practices[15]. Additionally, in case of leakage of information to unauthorized persons, destruction of data, alteration, or any other form of data mishandling that could predispose customers to be financial losses, tainting their reputations, and loss of confidentiality, an organization should report to the states’ data security regulators. In the UK, for example, it is specified that the firm should report under 72 hours, and that should follow by communicating and supporting the people that may be affected.
Reportedly, however, firms fail to comply with a majority of the principles that are outlined in the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (EU) 2016/679. Some of the reasons that have been reported by the organizations for the lack of compliance includes expenses. Firms, especially small businesses, may feel the weight of the imposed regulations financially[16]. For instance, the biggest emphasis in the document is the accountability sector where the organization is required to keep[17]. Moreover, firms will similarly need to train their employees on following the required to train their employees and conduct a constant assessment that they explain to prove costly. Moreover, these organizations fear the looming fines that firms face of up to 4% of their annual incomes of up to EUR 20,000,000[18].
Critics of Data Protection Regulation 2018 (EU) 2016/679
Opponents of General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (EU) 2016/679, however, note that these stringent privacy frameworks will inhibit the development of technological developments in EU countries. Chivot and Castro mainly focus on the regulation that requires organizations to seek consent from people before using their data.[19] The writers explain that these measures put technology and other industries in general that are dependent on technology at a competitive disadvantage to rivals in Asia and America. Observantly, the economy at large in the current technological era is powered by technology. The economy from the 1990s has evolved from being internet-centered to a data-driven economy and to the present algorithmic-based economy, which enables the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)[20]. However, these data regulations threaten to inhibit the vast developments of AI[21]. Specifications such as the need to acquire use consent although may be possible, they are generally expensive. EU countries recognize these limitations and have imposed national ramifications of these shortcomings. However, these changes will not be efficient in enabling the EU to thrive in the algorithmic economy. Therefore, the EU is urged to make reforms in its policies urgently to embark on AI productivity quickly.
However, it is noted that GDRP hurts the economy. AI is the basis of algorithmic recognition that is utilized in facial recognition and other personal identification methods. Article 22 of the GDPR bans the use of automated data in decision making that affects the individual legally or in any other method. Instead, they require to follow up through human methods[22]. This provision, however, bars organizations in activities such as determining their qualification to access mobile loans without prior human assessment, then they are violating the provision. Opponents of these measures argue that in the application, human review is expensive and goes against the practicality of technology, The benefits of AI, just like any other technological advancement is to enable efficiency[23]. Moreover, online decision-makers are forced to take measures that manual systems do not have, inconveniencing them in the long run.
Secondly, Article 13-15 on accountability specifies that an organization should be able to describe and alienate all their AI operations[24] This implies that an organization should be able to explain how their AI system operates, which professionals in the field explain to be impossible in certain instances[25]. Experts in algorithm explain that neural network-based algorithm that is inspired by the humans and animals are the most advanced that are applied in a variety of AI operations. However, its complexity makes it difficult to understand even by specialists. Therefore it is unrealistic to expect business people who only apply it to be able to explain their operations.
Arguably, the suggestion that facial recognition technology should be banned is unrealistic; however, just like all AI technology, it should be restricted. It is well established that facial recognition can be used to enhance security and privacy. For example, facial recognition can be used to enable quick and accurate security checks at the airport. It can similarly be used to enhance security and speedy patient care in hospitals, and ensuring efficient money transfer either online or offline[26]. The accuracy of facial recognition is crucial as it is noted that the probability of people’s geometric to resemble is one in a million. Therefore, the measures that should be taken are to regulate face regulation. In EU countries, the measures that should be taken are to operate following the GDRP policies.
Conclusion
Observantly, facial recognition advancement has revolutionized numerous industries and institutions. Facial recognition technology uses images available in the database such as mug shots and drivers’ licenses to match with images captured on public placed cameras to identify people. The technology applies biometrics that map facial features that are predominant in an individual. Facial recognition has had a revolutionary effect to security, which has been faced with challenges due to cases of terrorism attacks. In response to this violence, the governments have introduced facial recognition technologies that are availed to relevant stakeholders to ensure that they are aware of the people they are serving without relying on documents. However, the organizations that have been entrusted with this information have not been ethical in its usages with examples of cases such as Tersely, who sent information to marketers in order to target a certain group of people. Therefore, the European Union has the intention of ensuring that facial recognition is used in an ethical manner particularly by vendors who may seek to profit illegally. EU responded by making policies that are expected to protect the personal data collected by data collectors such as facial recognition with their policies exempting law and policing. However, facial recognition has also been used illegally by these law enforcement agencies to infringe on the public’s privacy. Precisely, most of the organization in criminal justice system have used the information to pry into private information about the suspect although this is not warranted by the European parliament.
These concerns of organization collecting, processing, and the application and sharing private information in a manner that is not ethical causing observers and member of the public to require either reforms or the ban of the use of facial recognition. Resultantly, in 2018, EU implemented General Data Protection Regulations that dictate how personal information should be utilized. The facial recognition technology should be revived to the intended use through the application of GDPR. In summary, GRDP consists of 7 key principles. The principles require fairness, abiding to the law, transparency, being purpose in the collection and application of data, confidentiality, and accountability. Moreover, GDPR enforces the above stated measures through fines of up to 4% of an organization’s annual income that has been imposed in AI giants such as Google and Facebook amongst other firms.
Nonetheless, observers note that although GDPR is intended to protect fundamental rights in the application of data, its harsh measures may affect the intended functionality of AI technology. These policies for instance, requiring consent, or users to acknowledge tapping into personal information is expensive and in the long run, puts organizations in EU at a competitive disadvantage to their counterparts in Asia and America. Secondly, these policies requires data processing technologies to be followed by human evaluation to before making decisions. Similarly, the approach is expensive and unrealistic. Lastly, the regulations require the understanding of AI which are engineered to be complex, and their fines are extreme. Nonetheless, if the GRDP loosens their measures to be friendlier, facial recognition and other AI technology will thrive, ethically, in EU countries.
Bibliography
Burgess,M. What is GDPR? The summary guide to GDPR compliance in the UK. Wired. (2018). https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-gdpr-uk-eu-legislation-compliance-summary-fines-2018.
George, Damian, Kento Reutimann, and Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux. “GDPR bypass by design? Transient processing of data under the GDPR.” Transient Processing of Data Under the GDPR (August 9, 2018) (2018).
Mendoza, Susy. “GDPR Compliance-It Takes a Village.” Seattle UL Rev. 42 (2018): 1155.
Mondschein, Christopher F., and Cosimo Monda. “The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in a Research Context.” In Fundamentals of Clinical Data Science, pp. 55-71. Springer, Cham, 2019.
Štarchoň, Peter, and Tomáš Pikulík. “GDPR principles in Data protection encourage pseudonymization through most popular and full-personalized devices-mobile phones.” Procedia Computer Science 151 (2019): 303-312.
Lewinski P, Trzaskowski J, and Luzak J, Face and emotion recognition on commercial property under EU data protection law. Psychology & Marketing, 33(9), 729-746. (2016).
Houser, Kimberly A., and W. Gregory Voss. “GDPR: The end of Google and facebook or a new paradigm in data privacy.” Rich. JL & Tech. 25 (2018): 1.
Santos, Cristiana. “Satellite Imagery, Very High-Resolution and Processing-Intensive Image Analysis: Potential Risks Under the GDPR.” Cristiana Santos, Lucien Rapp,’Satellite Imagery, Very High-Resolution and Processing-Intensive Image Analysis: Potential Risks Under the GDPR'(2019) 44 (2019): 275-295.
Chivot, E. and Castro, D. The EU Needs to Reform the GDPR To Remain Competitive in the Algorithmic Economy. Centre for Data Innovation. (2019). https://www.datainnovation.org/2019/05/the-eu-needs-to-reform-the-gdpr-to-remain-competitive-in-the-algorithmic-economy/
Dibble, Suzanne. GDPR For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
Edwards L, Privacy, security and data protection in smart cities: A critical EU law perspective. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev., 2, 28, (2016).
Phillips, M. (2018). International data-sharing norms: from the OECD to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Human genetics, 137(8), 575-582.
Güven, Kübra. “Facial Recognition Technology: Lawfulness of Processing under the GDPR in Employment, Digital Signage and Retail Context.” (2019).
Lewinski P, Trzaskowski J, and Luzak J, Face and emotion recognition on commercial property under EU data protection law. Psychology & Marketing, 33(9), 729-746. (2016).
Mazzini G, A System of Governance for Artificial Intelligence through the Lens of Emerging Intersections between AI and EU Law. Digital Revolution–New challenges for law. (2019).
Gobeo, Antoni, Connor Fowler, and William J. Buchanan. GDPR and Cyber Security for Business Information Systems. River Publishers, 2018.
Cuijpers 2nd, Colette. “FACIAL RECOGNITION SYSTEMS AND THEIR DATA PROTECTION RISKS UNDER THE GDPR.” (2017).
Laybats, Claire, and John Davies. “GDPR: Implementing the regulations.” Business Information Review 35, no. 2 (2018): 81-83.
Phillips, M. International data-sharing norms: from the OECD to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Human genetics, 137(8), 575-582. (2018).
Veinović, Mladen. “Challenges of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).” In Sinteza 2018-International Scientific Conference on Information Technology and Data Related Research, pp. 23-30. Singidunum University, 2018.
Tsaneva, Monika. “Challenges of GDPR compliance in consumer financing companies.” In Conferences of the department Informatics, no. 1, pp. 103-115. Publishing house Science and Economics Varna, 2019.
Davis, Peter. “Facial Detection and Smart Billboards: Analysing the ‘Identified’Criterion of Personal Data in the GDPR.” University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper 2020-01 (2020).
[1]. International Conference on Speech Technology and Human-Computer Dialogue (SpeD), pp. 1-6. IEEE, 2019.
[2]Lewinski P, Trzaskowski J, and Luzak J, Face and emotion recognition on commercial property under EU data protection law. Psychology & Marketing, 33(9), 729-746. (2016).
[3] Burgess, M. What is GDPR? The summary guide to GDPR compliance in the UK. Wired. (2018).
[4] Edwards L, Privacy, security and data protection in smart cities: A critical EU law perspective. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev., 2, 28, (2016).
[5] use their data
[6] Mendoza, Susy. “GDPR Compliance-It Takes a Village.” Seattle UL Rev. 42 (2018): 1155.
[7]Mazzini G, (2019). A System of Governance for Artificial Intelligence through the Lens of Emerging Intersections between AI and EU Law. Digital Revolution–New challenges for the law. (2019).
[8] Furey, Eoghan, and Juanita Blue. “Alexa, emotions, privacy, and GDPR.” In Proceedings of the 32nd International BCS Human-Computer Interaction Conference 32, pp. 1-5. 2018.
[9] Edwards L, Privacy, security, and data protection in smart cities: A critical EU law perspective. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev., 2, 28, (2016).
[10] Mondschein, Christopher F., and Cosimo Monda. “The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in a Research Context.” In Fundamentals of Clinical Data Science, pp. 55-71. Springer, Cham, 2019.
[11] Güven, Kübra. “Facial Recognition Technology: Lawfulness of Processing under the GDPR in Employment, Digital Signage, and Retail Context.” (2019).
[12].’ Veinović, Mladen. “Challenges of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).” In Sinteza 2018-International Scientific Conference on Information Technology and Data Related Research, pp. 23-30
[13] Davis, Peter. “Facial Detection and Smart Billboards: Analysing the ‘Identified’Criterion of Personal Data in the GDPR.” University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper 2020-01 (2020).
[14] George, Damian, Kento Reutimann, and Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux. “GDPR bypass by design? Transient processing of data under the GDPR.” Transient Processing of Data Under the GDPR (August 9, 2018) (2018).
[15]. Phillips, M. (2018). International data-sharing norms: from the OECD to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Human genetics, 137(8), 575-582.
[16] Veinović, Mladen. “Challenges of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).” In Sinteza 2018-International Scient Houser, Kimberly A., and W. Gregory Voss. “GDPR: The end of Google and Facebook or a new paradigm in data privacy.” Rich. JL & Tech. 25 (2018): 1.ific Conference on Information Technology and Data Related Research, pp. 23-30
[17] Štarchoň, Peter, and Tomáš Pikulík. “GDPR principles in Data protection encourage pseudonymization through most popular and full-personalized devices-mobile phones.” Procedia Computer Science 151 (2019): 303-312.
[18] Veinović, Mladen. “Challenges of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).”
[19] Chivot, E. and Castro, D. The EU Needs to Reform the GDPR To Remain Competitive in the Algorithmic Economy. Centre for Data Innovation. (2019).
[20] Houser, Kimberly A., and W. Gregory Voss. “GDPR: The end of Google and Facebook or a new paradigm in data privacy.” Rich. JL & Tech. 25, (2018): 1.
[21] Santos, Cristiana. “Satellite Imagery, Very High-Resolution, and Processing-Intensive Image Analysis: Potential Risks Under the GDPR.” Cristiana Santos, Lucien Rapp,’ Satellite Imagery, Very High-Resolution, and Processing-Intensive Image Analysis: Potential Risks Under the GDPR'(2019) 44 (2019): 275-295.
[22] Chivot, E. and Castro, D. The EU Needs to Reform the GDPR To Remain Competitive in the Algorithmic Economy. Centre for Data Innovation. (2019).
[23] Tsaneva, Monika.
[24] Gobeo, Antoni, Connor Fowler, and William J. Buchanan. GDPR and Cyber Security for Business Information Systems. River Publishers, 2018.
[25], Dibble, Suzanne. GDPR For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
[26] Cuijpers 2nd, Colette. “Facial Recognition Systems And Their Data Protection Risk Under The Gdpr.” (2017).