Facial recognition invades privacy and endangers students

The technology of facial recognition has been on the rise for many years now, but is it ready for school use? The simple answer is no. Biometric identification’s violation of privacy, susceptibility to being abused, and ineffectiveness compared to alternative options creates an unreliable solution for school security. If relied upon, the technology of facial recognition, in its current state, will be a liability to student safety.
Privacy is a basic human right, and no one can take that away, but facial recognition is trying to. Many fear that “a high-tech security state will erode personal freedom” (Hecht), and they aren’t wrong. No matter how hard one tries to “stay off the grid,” he or she, “despite the possibility of choosing not to participate...the technology is still being used” (Mudhar). This use of technology is not an option, but an order. Whether you want to be tracked or not, you will be, without any hesitation or way to stop it. As soon as a student walks through his or her school doors, they are tracked forever. Some have suggested that “We need rules that ensure consumers have knowledge about how their personal information may be used and the ability to say "no" to its collection and retention” (Graham). However, these “rules” do not exist, and until they do, use should be prohibited in schools. Furthermore, facial recognition has even been proven illegal in some cases: “Three Illinois plaintiffs allege that the facial-recognition technology used in the U.S. version of Moments violates that state’s 2008 Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires companies to get explicit consent to collect biometric data, including facial scans” (Mudhar). If consent is needed, then how could facial recognition provide security, and if consent is not mandatory then it violates the citizens’ rights; therefore, biometric identification is not the answer.
Facial recognition is also highly abusable, creating a very serious problem. Using biometrical identification, “a person’s face can be instantaneously transformed into a unique digital faceprint without any personal engagement, and used for a variety of purposes such as identifying, verifying and tracking individuals” (Long). This may seem very useful in the case of criminals or an offender of some sort, but we are not criminals, we are children. If in the wrong hands this technology allows for students to be tracked wherever they go, both in and out of school. There is no need for this to even be a possibility, schools should not have facial recognition. When asked if the technology could be abused, facial recognition expert Alice O’Toole responded, “That’s certainly a possibility” (quoted in Chang). Even the president of Microsoft, Brad Smith, said that there is “potential for abuse” (quoted in The Washington Post). If both the experts and creators say the technology is abusable, why subject students to it? Facial recognition is not the correct choice for our student population.
If we need improved school security, why veer towards biometrical identification? Other options present a much more appealing case. For one, “the efficacy and impact of the technology are not yet fully understood” (Graham). Why are options being considered when the full extent of the technology is yet to be understood? Furthermore, facial identification systems “tend be rather inaccurate” (Gignac). For example, a test showed that the software “mistakenly identified...congressmen as suspected criminals in an arrest database” (Graham), further proving its inconsistency. A mishap can mean a student locked out of his or her school, or an outsider entering without confrontation. Another issue was discovered at the University of Toronto, where researchers created an algorithm that “can become advanced enough it can dupe the facial-recognition algorithm with almost 100-per-cent accuracy” (Gignac). Student safety cannot be held in the electronic hands of a faulty system that can be “duped” without failure.
Facial recognition is not just outweighed by better options, but would actually be detrimental if placed in a school environment. If other safety protocols are dropped due to reliance on this faulty technology, the number of security breaches will increase, not decrease. So, whether it’s because facial recognition invades privacy, is easily abusable, or has less problematic alternatives, this new technology is being implemented too fast, and is neither ready nor appropriate for school use.
Editor's note: This essay by David Terach, a junior at Goshen High School, won the grand prize in the New York Civil Liberties Union Bill of Rights Essay Contest, Hudson Valley Chapter.