2019 Proved We Can Stop Face Recognition Surveillance
This piece originally appeared on .
In 2019, we proved face recognition surveillance isn’t inevitable. Now, it’s time for Congress to rein in the technology once and for all.
Last year, communities banded together to prove that they can — and will — defend their privacy rights. As part of ACLU-led campaigns, three California cities — , , and — as well as three Massachusetts municipalities — , , and — banned the government’s use of face recognition from their communities. Following another ACLU effort, the state of California blocked police body cam use of the technology — forcing San Diego’s police department to its massive face surveillance flop. And in New York City, tenants their landlord’s efforts to install face surveillance.
Even the private sector demonstrated it had a responsibility to act in the face of the growing threat of face surveillance. Axon, the country’s largest body camera supplier, face recognition on its products for the foreseeable future.
With Congress today holding its first hearing of 2020 on face recognition, it’s critical that lawmakers heed this unmistakable message from constituents: Face recognition surveillance has no place in our communities.
Face recognition offers governments a surveillance capability unlike any other technology in the past. The powerful capability can enable the government to identify who attends protests, political rallies, church, or AA meetings on an unprecedented scale. In China, the government is already using face recognition surveillance to ethnic minorities, including Uighurs. Protesters in Hong Kong have had to resort to to trick Big Brother’s ever-watchful eye.
In the United States, federal and local law enforcement agencies have been eagerly adopting this technology too, often in secret, at the urging of private companies, and despite widespread evidence that the technology is biased.
In 2018, an ACLU report revealed Amazon was actively helping multiple police departments deploy the technology in communities. A Georgetown University revealed that the NYPD used altered photos, artist sketches, and celebrity look-alikes when trying to find criminal suspects using face recognition. And just a few months ago, a of nearly 200 face recognition algorithms further confirmed that the technology is flawed and biased. For instance, false positives were found to be between two and five times higher for women than men.
One false match can lead to missed flights, lengthy interrogations, tense police encounters, false arrests, or worse. But the technology’s flaws are only one concern. Accurate or not, face recognition technology threatens to forever alter our free society, eroding the little remaining semblance of privacy guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment and turning us all into subjects to be monitored, tracked, and scrutinized wherever we go.
As Congress continues to hear from experts on face recognition, it is critical that it move fast to put the brakes on this technology. It must also press government agencies to disclose when, where, and how law enforcement agencies are using the technology, and what safeguards, if any, are in place to protect our rights.
At the same time, Congress must investigate the technology companies arming law enforcement with this surveillance technology. They should have hearings forcing companies who continue to stonewall Congress to disclose how they are marketing their technology, who they are selling it to, and the representations they have made about its efficacy. As part of these hearings, they should request and make public documents revealing which government agencies use face recognition and from which companies the agencies have purchased this technology. It is unacceptable that many of these companies tout transparency on one end but then on the other end and continue to secretly do business with law enforcement agencies, often under .
There can be no accountability if there is no transparency. And communities are demanding action.
In 2019, we proved a face surveillance dystopia isn’t inevitable. Congress can — and must — make 2020 the year we rein this technology in once and for all.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.