Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Just how much federal money are we going to waste testing face recognition technology that is both intrusive and ineffective? These systems are clearly not ready for prime time, having had a zero success rate when trained on the general public in search of criminals and terrorists at the Super Bowl and at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport. But Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice keeps finding new uses for it here.
This zeal has to do with a $7-million federal grant the Sheriff's Office was given to spend on this technology, a piece of pork dished up by Rep. C.W. Bill Young, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Spending the money in Pinellas County may give our economy a tiny nudge - though it mostly benefits a Massachusetts face recognition firm called Viisage Technology Inc. - but at what cost to personal freedom and privacy?
The technology has been described by supporters as no different from hanging up "wanted" posters and comparing them to visitors entering a building. But that doesn't begin to describe what the technology does. Facial recognition technology maps a person's face at dozens of different places for points of comparison and then matches them to a database of known criminals - a far more intrusive process than having a security guard glance at your face as you come through a door.
Since January 2002, facial recognition technology has been deployed at the airport and at the visitors' center of the Pinellas County Jail. So far, not a single match or arrest has been made.
In fact, everywhere the technology has been used in public spaces it has failed miserably. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union looked at its deployment at the Palm Beach International Airport and found that the system wasn't able to match volunteer employees, whose pictures were entered into the database, in 503 out of 958 tests, or 53 percent of the time. When the system is set to cast a wider net, numerous false positive results mean innocent people are being hassled and inconvenienced, and law enforcement resources are being wasted.
Although the technology has been useless, Rice has now deployed it at Pinellas County's criminal courthouse. Visitors to the courthouse will be told to look into a camera as a condition of entering the building. The system will then compare the geography of their faces to a database of 5,000 criminals with outstanding felony warrants and those wanted by the FBI. According to Rice, none of the images captured of the general public are saved.
Rice says he understands the privacy concerns but thinks the security benefits outweigh them. As to a possible court challenge by privacy groups, Rice says he expects the technology to be legally tested. "I welcome that," he says.
What Rice should welcome is a full public debate on the costs and benefits of this system. It has suddenly arrived on our doorstep without any public vetting or approval. In a free society, no one should have to have their picture taken by government before being able to use a public building such as a courthouse - especially when the security benefits are so unproven.
With all the unmet needs in Pinellas County, this technology is the last thing we should be spending taxpayer money on.