 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
One of the major concerns about the use of facial recognition technology in schools is that it may habituate young people to accept the use of these systems and desensitise them to the potential risks involved. It is argued that this will encourage schoolchildren to accept subsequent, more extensive applications of such systems which could have harmful implications for their personal freedoms.
Adam Schwartz, a lawyer with United States digital privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, has stated, 'There's a general habituation of people to be tolerant of this kind of tracking of their face. This is especially troubling when it comes to schoolchildren. It's getting them used to it.'
Victoria's Information Commissioner, Sven Bluemmel, has raised the same concern. Mr Bluemmel has queried, 'Do we want our children to feel like it's normal to be constantly under surveillance?'
The material which follows is an abbreviation of an opinion piece written by Cynthia Wong, published in the Australian edition of The Guardian on August 17, 2018, which aims to warn readers of some of the dangers associated with the Australian government's Identity Matching Services Bill.
' Should the government be able to track your every move when you walk down the street, join a protest, or enter your psychiatrist's building? Facial recognition technology may make that a reality for Australians. Parliament should refuse to expand its use until the government can demonstrate it won't be used to violate human rights or turn us all into criminal suspects.
The bill would create a nationwide database of people's physical characteristics and identities, linking facial images and data from states and territories and integrating them with a facial recognition system.
The system would initially enable centralised access to passport, visa, citizenship, and driver license images, though states and territories may also link other information, for example, marine licenses or proof-of-age cards. Government agencies and some private companies would then be allowed to submit images to verify someone's identity. Government agencies will also use it to identify an unknown person. The Department of Home Affairs would manage the system.
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull describes the proposal as a "modernisation" and "automation" of existing data-sharing practices between law enforcement agencies, making facial recognition "available in as near as possible real time." But the proposal is too broad, enables using facial recognition for purposes far beyond fighting serious crime, and leaves significant details to departmental discretion or future interpretation. The lack of safeguards combined with the centralisation of a massive amount of information raises the potential for abuse and ever-expanding mission creep (the expansion of the use of the technology beyond the scope originally intended)...
The bill raises immediate alarms about privacy and other rights. With scant limits on future data collection and use, the amount of data is likely to grow over time. It also obliterates notions of consent since information people disclose for one purpose-obtaining a fishing license-could be easily used for entirely different ones like targeting "jaywalkers or litterers."
Proponents contend that the system will not involve "surveillance" or direct integration with CCTV cameras. Nonetheless, the bill has the potential to facilitate broad tracking and profiling, especially when images are combined with other data. Imagine the chilling effect if officials ran photos taken from surveillance cameras at a demonstration or outside a union hall. Or the assumptions that could be made if you're caught on cameras outside of a drug treatment centre, abortion clinic, or marriage counsellor's office.
Notably, the proposal doesn't require law enforcement agencies to get a warrant before using the system to identify someone, which is critical to preventing abuse. And what would prevent the government from integrating it with CCTV once the technologies are in place?
Facial recognition technology is far from perfect. Independent studies have found these systems often have a racial or ethnic bias. Yet the government has not disclosed enough information about the accuracy of the system it intends to use. What are its error rates and are they higher for racial and ethnic minorities? This is not a trivial issue. False positives mean people are wrongly accused or placed under unwarranted suspicion. False negatives mean criminals may continue to walk free...
Lack of explicit safeguards in the bill means that information could be abused by government officials, police officers, or even private companies against people in unpredictable and unexpected ways. Australia's patchwork of data protection laws provides insufficient safeguards against these risks...'