国际战略研究中心-人脸识别技术：负责任的使用原则和立法前景（英）-2021.9-21页_600kb

Facial Recognition Technology Summary

Core Content

Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) is a rapidly evolving tool that offers significant benefits in terms of convenience, efficiency, and public safety. However, its use raises serious concerns regarding accuracy, bias, privacy, and civil liberties. This report outlines the responsible use principles for FRT and examines the legislative landscape in the United States, focusing on both regulation and bans at the federal, state, and local levels.

Main Points and Key Information

Responsible Use Principles

• Constitutional Protections: FRT must be used in a way that is consistent with constitutional rights, requiring clear guardrails such as laws, rules, and policies.
• Accuracy and Bias: FRT accuracy has improved significantly, with recent NIST studies showing that systems are less likely to make errors based on race or gender. However, accuracy can vary depending on image quality and data sets.
• Distinction Between FRT and Facial Characterization: Much of the public criticism of FRT is actually about facial characterization, which involves identifying attributes like gender, age, or race from an image. FRT, by contrast, compares images to determine if they match.
• Need for Guardrails: Clear regulations are essential to ensure responsible use and to address misinformation and confusion about the technology.

Legislative Landscape

Federal Level

• No national ban on FRT has been enacted.
• Two bills introduced during the 116th Congress (S.3284 and H.R.4021) proposed warrant requirements for federal law enforcement.
• The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2021 (S.2052/H.R.3907) would ban federal use of FRT and prohibit the use of federal funds for such purposes.

State Level

• Regulation: Several states have enacted laws to govern FRT use by government agencies. Examples include:
  • Massachusetts: Requires warrants for facial recognition searches and limits use to criminal investigations.
  • Utah: Limits FRT use to felony and violent crime investigations and requires written requests for use.
  • Washington: Requires impact assessments, public accountability reports, and community consultations before deploying FRT.
• Bans: Some states have implemented broad bans on FRT use by government agencies. Examples include:
  • Vermont and Virginia: Bans are indefinite and remain in place until new legislation authorizes FRT use.
  • Arizona and New Jersey: Proposed legislation includes restrictions on discriminatory uses and data retention.

Local Level

• Regulation: Over 19 municipalities have enacted FRT bans, and many others are considering similar measures.
• Approaches to Oversight: Local regulations often require:
  • Authorization and Oversight: Approval from city councils or legislative bodies before FRT procurement.
  • Use Restrictions: Limiting FRT to specific purposes like criminal investigations or missing persons searches.
  • Transparency: Public disclosure of use policies, impact assessments, and system performance data.
  • Human Review: Requiring trained personnel to review FRT matches and ensure accuracy.

Key Regulatory Measures

• Authorization and Oversight:
  • Many jurisdictions require city council or legislative approval before purchasing FRT systems.
  • Some states require warrants for FRT searches, particularly in criminal investigations.
• Use Restrictions:
  • Limiting FRT to specific types of offenses or non-criminal uses like locating missing persons.
  • Prohibiting uses based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, or gender.
• Transparency:
  • Public accountability reports and impact assessments are common.
  • Annual public reporting on FRT use is required in several states.
• Testing Requirements:
  • Laws require operational testing to assess accuracy and bias in real-world conditions.
  • Independent third-party testing is mandated in some states and proposed in others.
• Human Review:
  • Ensuring trained personnel review FRT matches to reduce errors.
  • Some states require multiple employees to independently verify matches before they are used in investigations.

Conclusion

FRT presents both opportunities and risks. While it can enhance public safety and convenience, its use must be carefully regulated to protect privacy and civil liberties. A comprehensive national framework is necessary to avoid regulatory fragmentation and to ensure consistent, responsible application of the technology. The current legislative efforts across the U.S. highlight a growing awareness of the need for oversight, transparency, and accountability in FRT use.