Search Documents and Resources

    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
Project On Government Oversight
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate
  • Afghanistan
  • More Topics
  • About
  • Mission & History
  • Board & Staff
  • Financials
  • Take Action
  • For Federal Employees
  • COVID-19: Tips
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
Project On Government Oversight
    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate
Constitutional Principles

Facial Recognition Surveillance Faces New Calls for Legal Limits

By Jake Laperruque | Filed under analysis | March 13, 2019

(Illustration: CJ Ostrosky/POGO)

This piece originally appeared on Axios.

The expanded use of facial recognition by law enforcement agencies poses significant risks, from misidentifications and unlawful targeting to the danger of disclosing sensitive information about people's daily lives.

What's happening: There are few legal constraints on the use of facial recognition. Both federal and state lawmakers are trying to address the technology's risks while responding to pressure from law enforcement and from big tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft.

The technology presents a variety of risks:

  • It threatens to end anonymity, a right critical to common sensitive activities and recognized by the Supreme Court as a key First Amendment shield. In China, a facial recognition surveillance dragnet can quickly track down individuals in cities of millions. U.S. networks are not far behind.
  • It could endanger public safety. One study of real-time facial recognition found misidentifications were 10 times more frequent than proper identifications, and MIT research has revealed high error rates for women and people of color. Without proper checks, a computer error could lead officers to arrest or use force against innocent individuals.
  • It could limit free exercise of protected rights. Baltimore police used facial recognition to disrupt a lawful protest by identifying and arresting anyone with an outstanding warrant. An FBI presentation includes the use of facial recognition to identify attendees at political rallies.

Where it stands: Pre-identified photos of half the U.S. adult population are searchable in law enforcement databases.

  • Last Congress, members raised concerns over facial recognition with government agencies and companies. And the FBI's use of the technology has received bipartisan criticism.

What's needed: Limiting the use of facial recognition to serious crimes and requiring police to secure a judge's permission to use the technology, based on probable cause, could both lower the risk of abuse.

  • Approval might be granted to identify a suspect committing a crime on a security camera, for example, but not to build a database of attendees at a political event.

Between the lines: Facial recognition systems fall in largely uncharted legal territory, though the Supreme Court did extend Fourth Amendment rights to public areas last year.

  • Washington state is considering competing bills to regulate facial recognition.
  • The debate could soon return to Congress, which has been weighing greater oversight of the technology.
  • The other side: Microsoft and Amazon’s calls for law enforcement limits on facial recognition have not stopped them from lobbying against Washington state's bill with stronger limits, and they are likely to lobby against federal limits as well.

Go deeper: Read the Project on Government Oversight's task force report, "Facing the Future of Surveillance."

The Constitution Project

The Constitution Project seeks to safeguard our constitutional rights when the government exercises power in the name of national security and domestic policing, including ensuring our institutions serve as a check on that power.

Author

  • Author

    Jake Laperruque

    Jake Laperruque is Senior Policy Counsel with The Constitution Project at POGO.

Related Tags

    Constitutional Principles Surveillance Civil Liberties Justice System Facial Recognition Privacy Law Enforcement

Related Content

  • Constitutional Principles

    Facing the Future of Surveillance

  • Constitutional Principles

    Unmasking the Realities of Facial Recognition

  • Accountability

    Three Key Reforms for Facial Recognition and Body Cameras

  • Transparency

    Amazon Pushes ICE to Buy Its Face Recognition Surveillance Tech

Site Footer

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • Press Center
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Briefing
  • Newsletters
  • Publications
  • Report Corruption
Better Business Bureau Accredited Charity CharityWatch Top Rated Charity Great Nonprofits 2021 Top-Rated Charity Navigator Four-Star Charity

©2023 POGO | Privacy Policy

Project On Government Oversight logo

Project On Government Oversight

Oversight in your inbox.