Facial Recognition Technology Just Got a Major Upgrade

Surveillance Tech: Bypassing Bans and Raising Concerns

The Rise of “Live” Facial Recognition

The proliferation of facial recognition technology poses significant challenges to privacy and civil liberties. While concerns about the use of facial recognition in law enforcement have been growing for years, recent developments have exacerbated these worries. Unionjournalism has learned that police forces are increasingly utilizing “live” facial recognition, a technology that goes beyond still image identification and scans individuals in real-time.

This shift to real-time scanning has profound implications for the public. As Peter Fussey, a researcher at the University of Birmingham, explains, “What you see in the UK is live facial recognition, which means that there is a database of individuals the police are interested in. Then, as the public walks past the camera, each of those people is scanned and then matched against that database.” This practice raises serious ethical questions about the nature of surveillance and the potential for abuse.

Jennifer Strong, Senior Staff Attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), emphasizes the intrusive nature of biometric data: “It’s one thing for a police department to hold up a photo of someone to try to identify them in a system. And it’s something very different to have live identification happening in real time.” This continuous monitoring erodes personal privacy and creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Furthermore, the use of live facial recognition raises concerns about proportionality in policing. Fussey argues that “the existing CCTV cameras, or low-tech, analog human surveillance, doesn’t involve the capture, processing, and maintenance and management of biometric data, which is a special category of data, and is universally seen as an intrusive practice.” The deployment of such powerful technology requires careful consideration of its necessity and potential impact on fundamental rights.

Strong underscores the challenges associated with the vast amounts of data generated by these systems: “That special category of data has to be safely sorted and stored. And as he points out, no human can possibly process the volume that’s being captured by these systems.” This raises serious questions about the accuracy, reliability, and potential for bias in facial recognition algorithms.

Fussey highlights the need for a rigorous assessment of the necessity and proportionality of using facial recognition technology: “That raises some serious questions about how proportionate that is, for instance. How necessary it is to biometrically scan tens of thousands of people just cause you’re interested in talking to somebody.” While there may be legitimate uses for facial recognition in specific situations, such as identifying suspects in serious crimes, its indiscriminate application to the general public is deeply concerning.

Strong points out the potential for false identification and the consequences of such errors: “If the camera says that you are a suspect, you’re somebody on their watch list, how many times do we know it’s correct? In our research, we found it was correct eight times out of 42. So, on six full days, sitting in police vans, eight times.” The inherent fallibility of facial recognition technology underscores the urgent need for greater transparency, accountability, and oversight.

The Case of Marseille: A City Resisting the Surveillance Tide

Marseille’s Unique Context

The city of Marseille, a vibrant Mediterranean port known for its cultural richness and economic challenges, has become a focal point in the debate surrounding surveillance technology. Marseille’s diverse population, complex social dynamics, and political tensions create a unique context for examining the implications of increased surveillance.

The city’s history, marked by social inequalities and periods of unrest, has led to calls for greater security measures. However, the deployment of surveillance technologies raises concerns about the potential for misuse and the erosion of civil liberties.

The Technopolice Movement

In response to these concerns, a grassroots movement known as Technopolice has emerged in Marseille. This activist network, spearheaded by La Quadrature du Net, a digital rights advocacy group, seeks to challenge the expansion of surveillance technologies and defend privacy rights.

Technopolice has organized demonstrations, published reports exposing the shortcomings of surveillance systems, and advocated for policies that prioritize human rights over security.

Balancing Security with Freedom

The debate surrounding surveillance in Marseille reflects a wider societal struggle to balance security with freedom. While many support the deployment of technology to combat crime, there is growing awareness of the potential risks associated with unchecked surveillance.

The Technopolice movement’s efforts highlight the importance of public engagement and citizen activism in shaping the future of technology and its impact on society.

Gabrielle Voinot, a researcher at the University of Marseille, has been closely following the debate. She notes that the city’s history of political instability and social unrest has created a context where surveillance measures are often seen as necessary. She says, “For Nano the creep of increased surveillance has personal resonance. She grew up in Albania as it lurched between different political regimes in the 1990s. Her father, a politician, opposed the party that was in power for part of that time. “It was a very difficult period for us, because we were all being watched,” she says. Her family suspected that the authorities had installed bugs in the walls of their home. But even in France, freedoms are fragile. “These past five years France has lived for much of the time in a state of emergency,” she says. “I’ve seen more and more constraints put on our liberty.”

Concerns have been raised throughout the country. But the surveillance rollout has met special resistance in Marseille, France’s second-biggest city. The boisterous, rebellious Mediterranean town sits on some of the fault lines that run through modern France. Known for hip bars, artist studios, and startup hubs, it is also notorious for drugs, poverty, and criminal activity. It has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in Europe but is stranded in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, a region that leans far right. The city pushes back. Its attitude could be summed up by graffiti you might pass as you drive in on the A7 motorway: “La vie est (re)belle.” That all makes Marseille a curious testing ground for surveillance tech. When President Emmanuel Macron visited the city in September 2021, he announced that 500 more security cameras would be given to the city council. They would be placed in an area of the city that is home to high numbers of immigrants and has become synonymous with violence and gang activity. He struck a law-and-order tone: “If we can’t succeed in Marseille, we can’t make a success out of France.” The announcement was just the latest in a string of developments in Marseille that show an increased reliance on cameras in public spaces. Activists are fighting back, highlighting the existing surveillance system’s overreach and underperformance. Their message seems to resonate. In 2020, the city elected a new administration, one that had pledged a moratorium on video surveillance devices. But have the residents of Marseille succeeded, or are they simply fighting a rising tide?

The Technological Challenges of Facial Recognition

Accuracy Concerns: The Risk of False Positives and Misidentification

Police tech can sidestep facial recognition bans, according to a recent report by MIT Technology Review. This raises concerns about the accuracy of facial recognition systems. In the UK, for instance, live facial recognition technology is being used by the police, which involves scanning the faces of individuals against a database of people of interest. However, this raises questions about the risk of false positives and misidentification.

According to Peter Fussey, a researcher, the accuracy of facial recognition systems is a major concern. In a study, they found that the technology was correct only 8 times out of 42, which is a low success rate. This raises questions about the reliability of the technology and its potential for abuse.

Data Storage and Management: Addressing the Vulnerabilities of Biometric Databases

The use of facial recognition technology also raises concerns about data storage and management. Biometric databases are a special category of data that requires safe and secure storage. However, the sheer volume of data being captured by these systems makes it difficult for humans to process and manage.

As Jennifer Strong notes, the technology is unable to process the volume of data being captured. This raises questions about the proportionality of the technology and its necessity. If the technology is not able to accurately identify individuals, then it is difficult to justify the use of biometric data.

A Growing Unease: The Potential for Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination

There is also a growing unease about the potential for algorithmic bias and discrimination in facial recognition technology. As GABRIELLE VOINOT notes, the technology is often used in areas with high levels of poverty and crime, which can lead to a disproportionate impact on certain communities.

The use of facial recognition technology in Marseille, France, is a case in point. The city has a high level of ethnic diversity, but it is also plagued by poverty and crime. The use of the technology has raised concerns about bias and discrimination, and has sparked a campaign against the use of surveillance technology in public spaces.

Implications for the Future

The Potential for Abuse: Surveillance Tech in the Hands of Authoritarian Regimes

The use of facial recognition technology raises concerns about the potential for abuse by authoritarian regimes. As the technology becomes more widespread, it is likely to be used by governments to control and monitor their citizens.

This is a concern because the technology is often used in areas with a history of authoritarianism. In France, for instance, the government has used the technology to monitor and control the population. This raises questions about the impact of the technology on civil liberties and human rights.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability: Demanding Oversight of Police Technology

There is also a need for transparency and accountability in the use of facial recognition technology. As the technology becomes more widespread, it is essential that there is oversight and regulation to prevent abuse.

This includes ensuring that the technology is used in a way that is transparent and accountable. This means that there should be clear guidelines and regulations around the use of the technology, and that there should be mechanisms in place to hold the police accountable for any misuse of the technology.

Reimagining Public Safety: Finding Alternatives to Mass Surveillance

Finally, there is a need to re-imagine public safety in a way that does not rely on mass surveillance. This means finding alternative solutions that prioritize community policing and social services over the use of technology.

As Félix Tréguer notes, the use of surveillance technology in Marseille has not been effective in reducing crime. Instead, it has led to a sense of mistrust and unease among the population. This highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to public safety that prioritizes community engagement and social services.