Faceprints: Facial recognition systems are here to stay

• Author:
• Author name

  Quantumrun Foresight
• December 5, 2022

Insight summary

Faceprints are becoming the standard for identity verification from social media to public surveillance. However, civil rights groups are concerned that governments are not creating sufficient laws to protect citizens from organizations illegally harvesting their biometric data. The long-term implications of this development could include increased pushback from human rights groups and governments collaborating with faceprint service providers for public surveillance.

Faceprints context

Also called facial recognition systems, faceprints are digitally recorded data based on distinct facial structures; faceprints are a form of biometric information that uses an individual’s unique physical characteristics to identify them. 

Faceprints are widely used in smartphone security and law enforcement to track suspects. More controversially, they are increasingly employed in public surveillance and predictive policing. Law enforcement agencies increasingly implement facial recognition technology (FRT). However, implementing FRT modifies citizen-law enforcement interactions and requires the negotiation of new boundaries and accountability standards.

In the context of government and law enforcement, accountability requires justification and responsibility for actions. When it comes to new technologies like FRT and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, many questions remain about how these will be used and their impact in specific cases. 

Additionally, there have been instances where biometric data collection, such as faceprints and voiceprints, led to fraud and identity theft. In 2021, cybercriminals hacked the Chinese government’s facial recognition systems and used the data to file tax invoices worth USD $76.2 million. 

Disruptive impact

The modification of the privacy policy by TikTok in 2021 to include the collection of biometric data such as faceprints and voiceprints raises significant concerns about user privacy and data security. Alessandro Acquisti, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, points out that these biometrics are unique and permanent identifiers, which increases the risk associated with their collection and storage. The lack of clarity from TikTok on the intended use of this data adds to the apprehension, especially considering that such detailed personal information is not essential for the functioning of the app.

In contrast, Australia's implementation of Facial Recognition Technologies (FRTs) during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates a different aspect of biometric data usage. The country employed these technologies for public health purposes, particularly to ensure adherence to quarantine guidelines. However, this approach also raises questions about the balance between public safety and individual privacy rights. The widespread acceptance and effectiveness of such technologies in Australia may pave the way for their broader application in various aspects of governance and public administration.

Looking forward, the increased use of biometric data by entities presents opportunities and challenges. For individuals, there is a growing need to be aware of and consent to how their biometric data is used. Companies may need to navigate complex ethical and legal landscapes as they incorporate biometric data into their services. Governments may need to develop robust policies and regulations to protect individual privacy while leveraging the benefits of biometric technologies for public welfare. 

Implications of faceprints

Wider implications of faceprints may include: 

• Some citizens opposing increasing FRT use, including purchasing devices that prevent their faces from being scanned.
• FRT developers enhancing systems to be fraud-resistant (e.g., FRTs may be able to scan through shear fabric or extensive make-up accurately).
• More governments collaborating with FRT companies to develop and deploy facial scanning software for public surveillance.
• An increase in lawsuits against companies that illegally collect and utilize biometric data.  
• Increased pressure for Big Tech and social media corporations to justify the collection of faceprints and voiceprints.
• The introduction of consumer education programs by businesses and governments to inform the public about the implications and rights related to biometric data, leading to more informed and vigilant consumers.
• Enhanced security measures in banking and finance sectors through the integration of biometric authentication, significantly reducing instances of identity theft and fraud.

Questions to consider

• How might faceprint data and collection be biased against people of color?
• What else can governments do with a faceprint database?