OPINION

Facial recognition software use raises concerns

Since September, Lincoln police have used facial recognition software from the state Department of Motor Vehicles to help identify 23 possible suspects in crimes as varied as shoplifting, burglary and illegal gun purchases.

Last month, the Lincoln City Council approved a memorandum of understanding with the Nebraska DMV formalizing the Lincoln Police Department's use of the controversial technology, which is strongly opposed by civil liberties advocates and seen to be easily abused to identify criminal suspects.

"To make it perfectly clear to everyone, this is not the way in which we go and arrest anyone," Lincoln Police Chief Teresa Ewins told the council, trying to assure them that a software match would not be the sole evidence used for an arrest. "You need a lot more than a hit on facial recognition. It's a tool."

That tool, whether used alone or with other evidence, is unquestionably invasive to citizens' privacy, literally turning anyone with a driver's license whose face matches the software criteria into a criminal suspect.

Just as troubling, facial recognition software produces more misidentification of brown and black faces, a group that is already over-targeted by law enforcement.

Those issues have caused some cities, including San Francisco, where Ewins was a police commander before coming to Lincoln last year, to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition software.

Ewins acknowledged those concerns – "It's all about checks and balances," she told the council. "We are and will always be aware the software is not a panacea of identifying someone."

Or, in other words, she is saying "trust us."

That trust, however, must be earned.

Specifically, the use of facial recognition software should be regularly publicly reported, with a detailed listing of arrests that utilized the software and the corroborating evidence that served as the basis for the arrest.

That reporting also should break out the number of people of color who are arrested through the use of the software – and, if possible, an accounting of the number of misidentified possible suspects that also looks at the number of people of color.

Only through that transparency can the use or abuse of the facial recognition software be properly examined and judged not only by the department, which is biased towards its use, but by the public, civil liberties advocates and the council, who might choose to end the agreement and ban the use of the software if it is being abused.

-- Lincoln Journal-Star, May 13

Upcoming Events