Bill Overview
Title: FACE IT Act
Description: This bill establishes requirements with respect to the federal use of facial recognition technology. For example, the National Institute for Standards and Technology and the Department of Homeland Security must develop minimum accuracy requirements specific to each federal agency for use in cases of facial recognition technology in the government.
Sponsors: Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by facial recognition technology
Estimated Size: 300000000
- Facial recognition technology is used globally across various sectors including security, law enforcement, and personal technology.
- The federal use of facial recognition technology affects multiple public-facing sectors such as travel, security screening, and federal buildings.
- All individuals who are subjected to federal identification processes, including international visitors and those seeking federal services, will likely be impacted.
Reasoning
- The FACE IT Act mainly affects those involved in interactions where facial recognition technology is used, particularly in areas like federal security and identification.
- Budget allocations imply the act will affect high-traffic federal areas over several years; thus, populations in frequent contact with such points of service experience greater impact.
- Facial recognition technology impacts privacy perceptions, trust in technology, and potentially security processes.
- This study includes individuals across different demographics as the roll-out can have varying implications based on occupation, travel frequency, and socioeconomic factors.
Simulated Interviews
Security Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have some concerns about privacy, but improved accuracy could enhance security.
- As someone working in security, I think this could make our jobs easier with better technology for verification.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Government Employee (Washington, DC)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased accuracy is good, but there needs to be transparency on how data is used.
- I'm slightly worried about misuse, but the policy seems to point in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Frequent Traveler (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want to trust that my personal data is safe, especially when traveling.
- The quicker and more reliable the technology, the better all around for frequent flyers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Civil Rights Advocate (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This technology has historically had bias issues, and I worry about its federal use.
- I hope the policy will at least hold agencies accountable to standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Dallas, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased security is always good, but should not come at the cost of my privacy.
- I expect this will mostly impact when I need federal services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Facial recognition can be invasive and feel dystopian if not properly managed.
- Accountability is key, so I support having standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive step towards harnessing AI responsibly.
- Establishing standards helps growth and public trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Standards and accuracy are paramount; this could reduce risks.
- Accountability is crucial in tech, but maintaining citizen trust will be a challenge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Airport Staff (Boston, MA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If standards improve speed and reliability at checkpoints, it's a win.
- There needs to be adequate training for integrating these systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
International Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Effective and accurate systems are welcome, especially for international students like me.
- I worry about the technology's impact on personal freedoms.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Regulatory standards will take time to develop and implement across numerous federal agencies.
- Public acceptance of facial recognition technology remains a crucial factor in the effectiveness of this policy.
- Data privacy concerns must be addressed to avoid backlash or legal challenges.