Takeaways for Week No.5

 Wee 5 Takeaways - Chloe Hagan

Anonymity with facial recognition

• A theme of Convenience vs Privacy appears when discussing the different perspectives on the use of facial recognition about anonymity and the right to privacy.
• Authentication vs identification
• Authentication: a way to verify that person is who they say they are.
• Not nearly as significant in privacy protection.
• Identification: identify somebody unknown.
• Both have different privacy implications
• Biometrics for authentication will eliminate the need for passwords and replace keys (possibly).
• Growing use for facial recognition:
• Restaurants: displays well utilize facial recognition for frequent diner rewards and previous orders available.
• Airports: Delta airlines is the first airline to employ biometric airport terminal- authentication.
• 44% of US citizens have a passport. The airports/airlines can create a face print of you and compare you to a passport photo by the homeland security database. Delta allows opt-out/
• Hotels: Marriot hotels in china can use your passport to find your booking reservation.
• Retail stores: More skewed towards identification: Target/Walmart has rolled out facial recognition technology- compare images to shoplifter database.
• Identify you- link to all past shopping- targeted ads for shopping.
• Sporting events/EventsArenas: facial recognition to authenticate people coming in and out scan entry and exit ports - keep an eye out for terrorist databases.
• Madison square garden: uses for events - authentication but also identification for those who have potential threats/bans on the facility.
• Google arts and culture:
• 2016: Allows selfies and upload to app and Weill search database for portraits in world arts and match ur selfie with a portrait.
• Law enforcement: identification: the issue of accuracy
• Next-generation identification: FBI - national fingerprint database already established- another biometric for pal prints, face prints, iris readings, mugshots, body cam identification, and crime scene photographs.
• Not 100% accurate.
• The use of biometrics as exclusive means of identification in a crime is only one factor - has to have other evidence.
• High enough quality photos- more sophisticated technology- twins/doppelgängers problems can be solved.
• Every state has a database of citizen images- department of automobiles/driving bureau 
• Some states require probable cause to see these photos.
• Employers can't access it, the general public has no access, most government agencies can't and law enforcement purposes can access it.
• State-wide information and analysis center- sandy Utah, facial recognition info for law enforcement in the State of Utah.
• Inaccuracy
• Accuracy depends on the conditions and the subject.
• Women and persons of color are more inaccurate.
• Privacy concerns go beyond identification and possible tracking.
• 1) Notice/consent
• 2) Storage/Retention
• 3) Usage
• 4) Access
• 5) Data security
• 6) Protections against “big or little brother”

Need for regulation:

• Wen’s post: noting here are major benefits of facial recognition and using it all the time- the ability to process our extremely unique features. Used by law enforcement to identify criminals. 
• Recognizes numerous privacy concerns: mishandling, improper disclosure, and false matches.
• Utah’s law versus Washington 
• Does Utah law apply to all government use or just law enforcement: law enforcement is the main approval to use in other government entities. Department of public safety - just law enforcement.
• The statute requires law enforcement to request a warrant for facial recognition - probable cause means before you can get a warrant, you’ve got to go to a judge, lay out facts under oath that give you probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime - “fair probability of individually connected to a crime”.
• Utah restricts using facial recognition on any govt maintained database.
• Police can only request it in connection with investigating a felony, violent crime, or identifying persons at risk, deceased, or incapacitated.
• A trained employee of DPS conducts the comparison, two humans must agree there is a probable match.
• Must give notice to the person who interacts with a got agency that their image may be used with FR.
• Washington’s facial recognition law
• Is Washington’s law restricted?
• More generally - all government/departments can use facial recognition.
• Surveillance purposes: Utah has no written laws, and Washington explicitly has no live-tracking people, except for law enforcement if there are existent circumstances or search warrants.
• Use is limited to gov entities but not only to law enforcement.
• It requires permission for formal legislative authority before use, and any entity must fill out a report outlining purposes of use, training requirements, ATA management policy, giving public notice, etc.
• Not limited to criminal investigations can be used to track the movements of any person, not just suspected criminals, but requires a warrant for surveillance.
• Does using facial recognition to unlock your phone, instead of a passcode, give you less constitutional protection?
• If the court gets a warrant to seize the phone, then they can search. 
• If locked, they can’t get access with a password/passcode. 

Private Right of Action

• Illinois: grants citizens a “private right of action”: if you did not give consent, you can sue the company and recover statutory damages - dozens of lawsuits - class actions.
• Texas and Washington do not have this.

States question the regulation and collection and use of biometric information

• Utah has enacted a consumer privacy law that governs the biometric use of info - doesn’t go into effect until 2024.
• This only applies to businesses with <100,000 or more annual consumers and more than 25 mil in revenue.