Bill Overview
Title: Ethical Use of Facial Recognition Act
Description: This bill prohibits federal agencies from using facial recognition software until the enactment of legislation that implements certain guidance on its use, as recommended by a specialized commission created under this bill.
Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the ban and potential future regulations on facial recognition technology
Estimated Size: 150000000
- Facial recognition technology is currently used by various federal agencies for security and law enforcement purposes.
- The ban affects federal agencies' operations, which could impact the safety and security measures employed in federal facilities and in national security operations.
- Individuals who work in and those who frequently enter federal facilities, such as government employees, contractors, and visitors, may experience changes in security screening processes.
- People involved in criminal justice and law enforcement, including suspects and victims, could be impacted as the technology is used for identifying suspects and missing persons.
- Privacy advocates and civil rights groups who have expressed concerns over the use of facial recognition technology will be directly impacted as the bill is primarily concerned with addressing their concerns.
- In the long run, the commission's guidance will influence the broader deployment of facial recognition technology, potentially impacting all those coming into contact with such systems.
Reasoning
- The budget constraint limits the scale of immediate security updates or alternative technologies that can replace facial recognition. Hence, direct effects on federal employees and visitors are expected to be more pronounced due to increased procedural complexity.
- The 10-year span allows time for the commission to set guidelines, so individuals involved in policy formulation and those advocating for stricter ethic codes on technology will experience increased long-term impact.
- Privacy advocates will likely see a positive impact on well-being due to the alignment of policy with their goals, while those primarily concerned with security efficacy might perceive a negative impact.
- The divergence in opinions and wellbeing impacts highlights the complexity of technology regulation affecting diverse groups—a necessary consideration in policy design to ensure balance between privacy concerns and security needs.
- The relatively large number of people potentially affected means any policy analysis should consider indirect impacts on wellbeing due to security procedure changes.
Simulated Interviews
Federal agency administrator (Washington D.C.)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the immediate impact on security operations due to the pause in using facial recognition. It might slow down some processes.
- I understand the privacy concerns and agree some regulation is necessary, but halting all usage seems excessive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Civil rights attorney (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a big step forward for privacy rights. Facial recognition has been misused for too long.
- I hope the commission thoroughly evaluates all privacy concerns before allowing any use again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could open up opportunities for new tech solutions that respect privacy.
- If the guidelines are clear, we can develop better, ethical technologies to replace facial recognition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Federal contractor (Dallas, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This complicates operations as we relied on facial recognition for efficiency.
- I'm hopeful new guidelines will improve transparency and security trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Privacy advocate (Seattle, WA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, some action is being taken! This is essential for protecting our privacy rights.
- I look forward to seeing the commission's recommendations reflected in actual laws.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired police officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry we might be letting safety slip through tighter controls for the sake of privacy.
- Hopefully, this pause leads to solutions that respect both safety and privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Government contractor (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will delay some of our projects that depend on facial recognition tech.
- Nonetheless, security protocol changes were anticipated and planned for.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Data Privacy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A moratorium is a wise first step—it buys time to address potential abuses and security flaws.
- Future tech needs to emphasize ethical use and clear boundaries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Government visitor (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I value knowing my privacy is being taken seriously at federal sites.
- If longer delays occur because of this ban, it could be a nuisance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Filmmaker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an important turning point for the conversation about surveillance.
- The stories and debates this sparks will be crucial for public awareness.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The creation and operation of the specialized commission for setting guidelines on facial recognition usage will incur administrative costs.
- Federal agencies' operational adaptability might be strained by the sudden removal of a technological tool, potentially incurring additional costs.
- The impact of any legislation resulting from the commission's guidelines will further alter the cost dynamics, potentially introducing either efficiencies or new expenses.
- There is a significant public interest in the balance between privacy rights and security, which could lead to political and regulatory changes impacting costs.