I am an amateur photographer and sometimes practice a genre named ‘street’ photography. As its name suggests, it means that I am walking around the streets taking photographs of everyday life as it unfolds.
This was one way to relieve the boredom during the days of the pandemic. I would walk around at different times of the day and night and take photographs of what life was like when thrown out of gear. People like to see photos of other people.
As I developed my craft, it became clearer to me that there is also an ethical aspect to this type of photography. As long as I was taking photographs of people who were willing to pose for me, I was on sure ground, but what about the instances when I was taking furtive shots of people going about their daily business? The ethical lines there are less clear.
Over time, I am developing a style where I post photographs of people who can be recognised only if I have their permission to do so, or if they have knowingly walked into a frame where it is abundantly clear that I am shooting. Otherwise, I try to desist from posting such photographs online unless the people in them are not readily identifiable.
This is a continuing ethical conundrum for me, and it has started defining my style as a street photographer. My style has turned dark, underexposed, mostly monochromatic, and uses shapes and negative space without focusing too much on the human face.
Apart from the qualms of photographers, the ubiquitous nature of facial recognition technology has thrown up ethical implications which vary depending on the political, social, and legal milieu of a country.
For example, in the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and India, facial recognition technology has grown differently while being used for various purposes, from law enforcement to border control to citizen services. The ethical debates in each country reflect differing concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and state surveillance.
In the US, the primary concern around facial recognition technology is the infringement on individual privacy. While there are legitimate uses for the technology, such as in locating missing persons or identifying suspects in criminal cases, critics argue that its widespread use can turn public spaces into zones of constant surveillance. There is also the issue of racial bias; studies have shown that some facial recognition systems misidentify people of colour at higher rates than white individuals, leading to fears of racial profiling, wrongful arrest and other such ills.
Various states and municipalities in the US have taken action to regulate the use of facial recognition. Some have banned its use by local agencies altogether, while others have passed laws requiring companies to obtain consent before collecting biometric data, including face scans. Some companies (such as IBM) have sworn off. Others profit from it.
The lack of a national regulatory framework means that the ethical guidelines surrounding facial recognition remain fragmented and inconsistent across the country.
In stark contrast, in China, facial recognition technology is ubiquitous and considered a norm in society. Cameras are placed in public places, schools, and even residential areas, with the stated aim of maintaining public safety.
However, this widespread deployment has serious ethical implications concerning privacy and state control. The technology is used not just for crime prevention but also for monitoring the general population. Concerns around mass surveillance are not unfounded.
There is little public debate on its ethical use, largely because dissent is not well-tolerated. Moreover, in regions like Xinjiang, there are reports that facial recognition technology has been used as part of a broader state surveillance apparatus to monitor and control the Uighur Muslim minority, raising human rights concerns.
Interestingly, the United Kingdom has one of the highest numbers of surveillance cameras per capita in the world. While there are regulations governing their use, including a ‘Data Protection Act’, concerns about public surveillance remain. Police in London and Wales have conducted trials using facial recognition cameras in public spaces to identify individuals wanted for serious crimes.
Civil liberties groups argue that such uses infringe upon the privacy of individuals who are not suspected of any wrongdoing and create a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and public assembly.
However, there is a significant public debate and legal scrutiny of facial recognition in the UK, and
the technology has faced challenges in the courts. In 2020, the Court of Appeal found that the use of facial recognition by the South Wales Police was unlawful, setting a precedent for its regulation.
In India, facial recognition is emerging as a significant tool for various applications including law enforcement and voter identification. It is also a technology that allows us greater convenience as we go along, with applications like DigiYatra which allow quicker access for travellers.
However, ethical issues remain. Like the US, there is also a concern about the technology’s accuracy, especially in a racially diverse country. Our public discourse is only just catching up to the ethical implications of the technology’s rapid adoption, and legal frameworks to ensure that its use aligns with firm ethical standards are only now beginning to take hold.
In each country, the ethical considerations involving facial recognition technology pivot on a fulcrum between public safety and individual privacy. While each nation has unique circumstances influencing its approach, all share common ethical dilemmas—namely the potential for abuse, data security, and the erosion of civil liberties.
While there are clearly local nuances to how this technology is used, there is a need for a nuanced approach to the deployment and regulation of facial recognition technology worldwide.
