Burning Bridges: The Automated Facial Recognition Technology and Public Space Surveillance in the Modern State

Monika Zalnieriute
{"title":"Burning Bridges: The Automated Facial Recognition Technology and Public Space Surveillance in the Modern State","authors":"Monika Zalnieriute","doi":"10.52214/STLR.V22I2.8666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Live automated facial recognition technology, rolled out in public spaces and cities across the world, is transforming the nature of modern policing.  R (on the application of Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, decided in August 2020, is the first successful legal challenge to automated facial recognition technology in the world. In Bridges, the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal held that the South Wales Police force’s use of automated facial recognition technology was unlawful. This landmark ruling could influence future policy on facial recognition in many countries. The Bridges decision imposes some limits on the police’s previously unconstrained discretion to decide whom to target and where to deploy the technology. Yet, while the decision requires that the police adopt a clearer legal framework to limit this discretion, it does not, in principle, prevent the use of facial recognition technology for mass-surveillance in public places, nor for monitoring political protests. On the contrary, the Court held that the use of automated facial recognition in public spaces – even to identify and track the movement of very large numbers of people – was an acceptable means for achieving law enforcement goals. Thus, the Court dismissed the wider impact and significant risks posed by using facial recognition technology in public spaces. It underplayed the heavy burden this technology can place on democratic participation and freedoms of expression and association, which require collective action in public spaces. The Court neither demanded transparency about the technologies used by the police force, which is often shielded behind the “trade secrets” of the corporations who produce them, nor did it act to prevent inconsistency between local police forces’ rules and regulations on automated facial recognition technology. Thus, while the Bridges decision is reassuring and demands change in the discretionary approaches of U.K. police in the short term, its long-term impact in burning the “bridges” between the expanding public space surveillance infrastructure and the modern state is unlikely. In fact, the decision legitimizes such an expansion. ","PeriodicalId":87208,"journal":{"name":"The Columbia science and technology law review","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Columbia science and technology law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/STLR.V22I2.8666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Live automated facial recognition technology, rolled out in public spaces and cities across the world, is transforming the nature of modern policing.  R (on the application of Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, decided in August 2020, is the first successful legal challenge to automated facial recognition technology in the world. In Bridges, the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal held that the South Wales Police force’s use of automated facial recognition technology was unlawful. This landmark ruling could influence future policy on facial recognition in many countries. The Bridges decision imposes some limits on the police’s previously unconstrained discretion to decide whom to target and where to deploy the technology. Yet, while the decision requires that the police adopt a clearer legal framework to limit this discretion, it does not, in principle, prevent the use of facial recognition technology for mass-surveillance in public places, nor for monitoring political protests. On the contrary, the Court held that the use of automated facial recognition in public spaces – even to identify and track the movement of very large numbers of people – was an acceptable means for achieving law enforcement goals. Thus, the Court dismissed the wider impact and significant risks posed by using facial recognition technology in public spaces. It underplayed the heavy burden this technology can place on democratic participation and freedoms of expression and association, which require collective action in public spaces. The Court neither demanded transparency about the technologies used by the police force, which is often shielded behind the “trade secrets” of the corporations who produce them, nor did it act to prevent inconsistency between local police forces’ rules and regulations on automated facial recognition technology. Thus, while the Bridges decision is reassuring and demands change in the discretionary approaches of U.K. police in the short term, its long-term impact in burning the “bridges” between the expanding public space surveillance infrastructure and the modern state is unlikely. In fact, the decision legitimizes such an expansion. 
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
燃烧的桥梁:现代国家的自动面部识别技术与公共空间监控
在世界各地的公共场所和城市推出的实时自动面部识别技术正在改变现代警务的性质。2020年8月决定的R(关于Bridges的应用)诉南威尔士警察局局长一案,是世界上第一个成功的对自动面部识别技术的法律挑战。在Bridges一案中,英国上诉法院认为南威尔士警方使用自动面部识别技术是非法的。这一具有里程碑意义的裁决可能会影响许多国家未来的面部识别政策。布里奇斯案的裁决对警方以前不受约束的自由裁量权施加了一些限制,警方可以决定针对谁以及在哪里部署这项技术。然而,尽管该决定要求警方采用更清晰的法律框架来限制这种自由裁量权,但原则上,它并未阻止将面部识别技术用于公共场所的大规模监控,也没有阻止其用于监控政治抗议活动。相反,法院认为,在公共场所使用自动面部识别- -即使是为了识别和跟踪大量人员的移动- -是实现执法目标的一种可接受的手段。因此,法院驳回了在公共场所使用面部识别技术所带来的更广泛影响和重大风险。它低估了这项技术可能给民主参与、言论自由和结社自由带来的沉重负担,这需要在公共空间采取集体行动。法院既没有要求警察使用的技术透明化,因为这些技术往往隐藏在生产这些技术的公司的“商业秘密”背后,也没有采取行动防止地方警察在自动面部识别技术方面的规则和规定不一致。因此,虽然布里奇斯案的决定令人放心,并要求在短期内改变英国警方的自由裁量方式,但它在烧毁不断扩大的公共空间监控基础设施与现代国家之间的“桥梁”方面的长期影响是不太可能的。事实上,这一决定使这种扩张合法化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prosecuting Excessive Pricing of Pharmaceuticals Under Competition Law Noticing Patents Panoptic Employment Regulation of DeFi Lending A Singular Disclosure Requirement Is Necessary For Patent Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1