Axon, a leading provider of body cameras and software to law enforcement agencies, has announced a significant policy change: a ban on the use of facial recognition systems on its devices. This decision, revealed on Thursday, stems from concerns about the reliability and ethical implications of the technology.
According to Axon’s independent ethics board, facial recognition technology is “not currently reliable enough to ethically justify its use.” This conclusion comes at a time when various sectors, from airlines to smartphone manufacturers, are increasingly adopting facial recognition. However, institutions and municipalities are expressing reservations about the government’s use of these algorithmically-powered surveillance tools, as reported by The New York Times.
The timing of Axon’s decision raises questions about potential political influences. In May, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted to ban the use of facial recognition technology by the city’s police and other agencies. Several other cities, including Berkeley and Oakland, California, and Somerville, Massachusetts, are considering or nearing similar bans. Furthermore, California lawmakers announced they are contemplating a statewide ban on facial recognition in police body cams.
Axon’s ethics board, comprised of members handpicked by the Policing Project at New York University School of Law, detailed their concerns in a 28-page report. The report highlights the technology’s inconsistent performance across different demographics, noting that it “does not perform as well on people of color compared to whites, on women compared to men, or young people compared to older people.”
The report also emphasizes the potential for inaccuracy when facial recognition is used with police body cameras. These cameras often operate in low-light conditions and produce shaky footage, which can compromise the accuracy of facial recognition algorithms, according to The New York Times. Barry Friedman, founding director of N.Y.U.’s Policing Project and a member of the ethics board, stated, “The tech is just not accurate enough. Until that’s fixed we don’t need to say another word. And that could be years.”
Axon’s decision marks a departure from the rapid innovation often associated with new technologies. It suggests a growing awareness of the privacy implications of facial tracking, particularly in the context of policing. While most police departments have yet to widely deploy facial recognition, its technical limitations and biases are not fully understood, even by the companies marketing the systems. This lack of understanding makes oversight of its use particularly challenging.
Critics fear that the widespread deployment of facial recognition technology could lead to a comprehensive surveillance state, citing China as an example. Friedman warned, “There’s a race to the bottom right now with this technology and the challenge is to stop that elevator before it goes through the ground floor.”
According to the ethics board report, Axon initially argued that it “could not dictate to customers how products were used, nor its customers’ policies, and that it could not feasibly patrol misuse of its product.” This stance mirrors the argument that technology vendors should not be held responsible for how their products are used. However, Friedman hopes that Axon’s pledge will encourage other vendors to consider the potential impacts of new technology on vulnerable populations. “We want them to remember that just because you can build it, doesn’t mean you should.”
The ethics board’s ultimate goal is to shift the company’s focus to the community served by law enforcement, rather than solely on law enforcement itself. While Axon’s ban is not foolproof, as law enforcement officials could potentially download footage and use third-party services like Amazon’s Rekognition, the process is time-consuming and costly. Eric Piza, an associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, suggests that this added effort may deter the use of the technology.
Piza views Axon’s moratorium as an important step, stating, “Everyone’s concerned about big data policing and that they put privacy above short-term financials is not something that we see enough.”
Axon’s decision will not completely halt the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement, as police departments could still use it on surveillance videos. True progress will require regulation at the city, state, or federal level. However, the move demonstrates the potential for independent ethics boards to guide technology companies whose products could significantly impact public life. If technology companies lack an internal conscience, outsourcing one may be the next best option.
Finally, will Axon’s decision create an opportunity for other vendors to replace them as the primary supplier of body cams to law enforcement agencies? It seems feasible. What are your thoughts?
(Feature image: Flickr)