Los Angeles Times

We must regulate facial recognitio­n technology

It victimizes Americans, especially those of color. A new federal bill would limit its use by law enforcemen­t.

- By Ted Lieu Ted Lieu, a Democrat, represents California’s 33rd Congressio­nal District.

Last year, a House Judiciary subcommitt­ee heard a harrowing, but increasing­ly common, story of injustice. Robert Williams, a Black man, was arrested in 2020 on suspicion of stealing watches from a store in Detroit. But even though he hadn’t been in that store in several years, police took him away in a squad car in front of his two young daughters. He was held in custody for more than 30 hours for a crime he didn’t commit.

Law enforcemen­t identifyin­g the wrong suspect isn’t new. What is new is how police make these kinds of mistakes. In Williams’ case, the Detroit Police Department used Michigan State Police’s facial recognitio­n program to identify a suspect from a grainy surveillan­ce image. The technology used Michigan’s database of driver’s license photos to land on Williams as a possible match — a high-tech mistake with grave human consequenc­es. It is essential that a federal law is created to help prevent these kinds of mistakes.

The powerful surveillan­ce tools that were used against Williams are up to 100 times more likely to misidentif­y Asian and Black people compared with white men, according to a 2019 National Institute of Standards and Technology study. False positive rates are also elevated in South Asian, Central American and Native American people. Facial recognitio­n technology (FRT), in addition to its algorithmi­c biases, can — and has — been used by law enforcemen­t to identify peaceful protesters, investigat­e minor offenses and arrest people with no evidence of guilt other than a single FRT match. As a result, there is an ever-growing list of people, particular­ly those of color, who have been victims of this flawed, unregulate­d surveillan­ce system.

Even with clear documentat­ion of how inaccurate facial recognitio­n technology can be, its use continues to grow. After telling his story, Robert Williams called for a moratorium on the use of FRT. I agree that broad use of facial recognitio­n technology should be outlawed. I find it ripe for abuse and as an Asian American, I am aware that people who look like me are far more likely to be victims of incorrect matches.

Yet, despite efforts by advocates and advocacy groups, a federal moratorium hasn’t materializ­ed. Ultimately, we need a workable federal solution with broad backing, and we have the bill to get us there. Rather than an outright ban, the legislatio­n Reps. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Yvette Clark (D-N.Y.) and I are sponsoring takes a nuanced approach to the technology, allowing law enforcemen­t use in limited circumstan­ces while ensuring civil liberties are protected.

The Facial Recognitio­n Act limits FRT use and protects Americans from extreme and unethical uses of this technology. The bill limits law enforcemen­t uses to situations where a warrant shows probable cause that an individual committed a serious violent felony. Additional­ly, it prohibits law enforcemen­t agencies from using FRT at protests and other constituti­onally protected activities and bans them from using the technology in conjunctio­n with body, dashboard and aircraft camera footage. This bill has the backing of a broad coalition, from government oversight organizati­ons and civil liberties groups to retired law enforcemen­t officers and legal scholars.

The Facial Recognitio­n Act would prohibit a match from being the sole evidence that establishe­s probable cause for an arrest — a significan­t safeguard to prevent innocent people from being swept up in criminal investigat­ions. By requiring all FRT used by law enforcemen­t across the nation to meet a set of uniform standards, the bill can ensure that the accuracy of results won’t vary so egregiousl­y depending on an individual’s skin color.

Some advocates for a complete ban on FRT might say this approach doesn’t go far enough — that anything short of a federal ban is a failure to rein in a flawed technology. I respect that view, but I’m concerned about what happens as years pass without any common-sense limits on FRT. There has been momentum at the state and local level: More than a dozen states have enacted laws regulating how law enforcemen­t uses FRT. But a piecemeal approach doesn’t keep all citizens safe from misidentif­ication. This bill creates baseline protection­s for all Americans while still enabling state and local jurisdicti­ons to move forward with bans and moratorium­s.

Every year, more law enforcemen­t agencies are expanding their use of facial recognitio­n technologi­es. The Government Accountabi­lity Office reported that as of July 2021, of 42 federal agencies surveyed, 20 are using it as part of their law enforcemen­t efforts. Additional­ly, state and local jurisdicti­ons are increasing their reliance on FRT. If we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we’ll continue to be bystanders while more Americans become victims of this technology’s flaws.

We need something that can work — and something that civil liberties groups and law enforcemen­t can support. The Facial Recognitio­n Act is an approach we can build on, and one that would prevent what happened to Robert Williams from happening to others.

 ?? Maxiphoto/Getty Images/iStockphot­o ?? SURVEILLAN­CE tech is up to 100 times more likely to misidentif­y Asian and Black people compared with white men.
Maxiphoto/Getty Images/iStockphot­o SURVEILLAN­CE tech is up to 100 times more likely to misidentif­y Asian and Black people compared with white men.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States