Bill Overview
Title: Facial Recognition Act of 2022
Description: This bill places limitations on the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies and officers.
Sponsors: Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in jurisdictions where law enforcement uses facial recognition technology
Estimated Size: 331000000
- Facial recognition is being increasingly used globally in law enforcement.
- The legislation explicitly targets law enforcement agencies and their use of technology.
- The improper use of facial recognition technology can affect civilians, particularly those in areas with heavy surveillance.
Reasoning
- The population impacted by this policy includes individuals in regions where law enforcement heavily utilizes facial recognition technology.
- A policy budget of $450 million over 10 years indicates a limited scope for implementation and monitoring.
- The policy could lead to increased privacy protections and potentially decrease harm from wrongful surveillance.
- Awareness and education about the policy and technology are essential for the public to feel and experience its impact.
- The level of impact could vary greatly depending on the density of surveillance and individual interactions with law enforcement.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (New York City, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this act is crucial for protecting our privacy.
- Facial recognition has the potential to invade personal freedom.
- I'm concerned about the reach of surveillance in my city.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Journalist (Oakland, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any step towards limiting facial recognition in policing is a step towards preventing misuse.
- As a journalist, it's paramount for me to protect my sources.
- I worry about the potential for wrongful identification.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Retired (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think using surveillance can sometimes make us safer, but it comes at a cost.
- Older people like me worry about our privacy being invaded too much.
- Good to hear there are some limitations coming into place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't really affect me directly because we don't see much surveillance here.
- I think it's more pertinent to urban areas.
- I support more protection for people, even though I'm less affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is a win for civil liberties advocates.
- I think it'll help adjust the balance of power between citizens and authorities.
- Facial recognition, without limits, is a civil liberties nightmare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's fine as long as private businesses aren't restricted too much.
- It's important to strike a balance between security and privacy.
- Surveillance can be a double-edged sword.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was once misidentified in a minor incident, which was really frustrating.
- More limitations mean fewer mishaps like mine, I hope.
- The act gives me a bit more peace of mind going forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time we have more oversight over such powerful technologies.
- I hope this makes accidental misuse less likely.
- Law enforcement needs tools, but they need rules too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Data Analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The long-term implications of such policies are crucial for protecting civil liberties.
- Facial recognition without oversight can develop into a dystopian reality.
- Professional and personal satisfaction seeps from more privacy measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Government Worker (Washington, DC)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important to balance technological advancement with privacy concerns.
- Monitoring is necessary, but unchecked power can lead to abuses.
- Supporting legislation that limits overreaching surveillance is key to democracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- Facial recognition technology is rapidly evolving, and legal precedence is still developing regarding its use and restrictions.
- Public perception and trust in law enforcement practices may be significantly influenced by privacy concerns related to facial recognition.
- Data on enforcement and compliance costs are relatively uncertain and contingent on specifics of how restrictions are implemented.