Some deployments of facial recognition technology are more publicly acceptable than others. This, according to a new article published in the National Security Journal, written by Nicholas Dynon, an academic and “Certified Counter Terrorism Practitioner” from New Zealand.
“License to Operate: Mapping the Public Acceptability of Facial Recognition Technology” digs into the selective public acceptance of facial recognition across use cases. Dynon notes that people “tend to accept that the technology has become part of the process of passing through customs at airports, for example, yet its use by retailers has sparked frequent backlash.”
Why be fine with some uses and not others? Knowing the answer, Dynon says, could help actors within the FRT supply chain to make more informed choices about how, when and why facial recognition is appropriate and more likely to be a benefit than a reputational handicap.
To Dynon, the frequency with which facial recognition causes controversy suggests that “security consultants and other practitioners responsible for providing advice to organizations in relation to the suitability of security systems are failing to incorporate the ‘public acceptability’ of potential FRT deployments within their advice.”
His solution is to develop a matrix for “mapping the acceptability of potential deployments based on a ‘reward proximity’ versus ‘perceived risk’ trade-off” – the so-called FRT Public Acceptability Model.
Too much, too soon: facial recognition deployments outpace understanding
A major issue around FRT is an imbalance between the speed of deployment and the pace of understanding. “Internationally, communities are largely unclear as to exactly what FRT is capable of, and are broadly split down the middle in their acceptance of it,” Dynon writes. “What makes the technology all the more controversial is that in spite of this, we’re nevertheless witnessing a proliferation in its deployment in more of the spaces we frequent in the course of our daily lives.”
This means that shoppers encountering facial recognition in retail environments may find themselves, for instance, facing discrimination or persecution based on a false positive match. Legal boundaries around deployment are often murky, as regulations plod behind proliferation.
The use of facial recognition tech by law enforcement is particularly unpopular, especially in New Zealand, where the tech is not as familiar as in more martially-minded countries like the U.S.
Recently, Dynon notes, “New Zealand Police published their first-ever policy on facial recognition, placing a stop on police deployment of Live FRT in all but rare and extreme circumstances, stating that “in the New Zealand context, it is considered that the overall risks of live FRT outweigh the potential benefits.”
Mixing uses can muddy people’s perception of facial recognition
And yet. Certain uses of facial recognition seem to bother people much less, if at all. Some forms are “widely accepted,” such as unlocking a phone, in social media apps or digital photo platforms (notably, all mobile phone-based) or using biometrics to clear a security gate. Authorities ruffle fewer feathers with FRT when it is deployed for high-stakes security cases, such as investigating a mass shooting.
The proliferation of legal, consensual and intentional gray areas erodes the fragile trust. Dynon argues that those who collect biometrics under the auspices of security are too prone to pivoting to other uses of data that may not be above board. The blurring of mass surveillance with consumer incentives can lead to dissonance and a broken understanding.
There is a “significant mismatch between the proliferating functionalities and use cases of FRT technology promoted by suppliers and the varying levels of public awareness and acceptability of these – and the ability of the FRT supply chain to mediate between the two.”
One person’s streamlined security solution is another’s dystopian threat to individual privacy and freedoms. Dynon cites numbers from a recent NZ Privacy Commissioner survey results showing that, while most respondents support FRT for identity verification in retail weapons purchases, very few are OK with face biometrics being used to track shopper behavior.
Research, policy on public acceptance of FRT deployments in early stages
New Zealanders, in general, are wary of biometric technology and support regulating its use with a biometrics Code of Practice, which is currently in draft stage. Nearly half express concern about the use of facial recognition in retail stores to identify individuals. Some 80 percent want the ability to have their data deleted. Age verification for restricted purchases and for access to gambling venues is broadly acceptable, while FRT for targeted advertising and invasive citizen tracking gets a hard thumbs-down.
In summary, the how, why, where and how of facial recognition play a major role in determining public acceptance. Some FRT deployments are more controversial than others, and where a specific deployment creates significant controversy it suggests “a failure of the FRT operator and their supply chain to have adequately assessed the potential (i) level of public acceptability of their intended deployment, or (ii) reputational risks stemming from a deployment type known to attract low levels of public acceptability (or high levels of non-acceptance).”
Finally, Dynon says, there simply must be more work to regulate and govern biometric technologies. “This paper and its proposed FRT Public Acceptability Model joins a limited body of barely established scholarship intended to assist practitioners in this regard.” New Zealand, in particular, has a way to go if it is to bring consumer understanding and acceptability thresholds in line with deployments.
“Understanding how various FRT deployment scenarios are perceived by New Zealanders would be useful in identifying how local perceptions differ from those in the existing international research (such as the US, UK, and Australia), and in establishing an evidence basis for discussing and developing legislative and policy-driven safeguards.”
Article Topics
biometrics | biometrics research | facial recognition | New Zealand
