Face Recognition Technology in Public Places

Currently, engineering science is rising, along with suspected terrorist attacks. Mobile ph cardinal(a)s and computers apply minimized its size to an incredibly half-size size it was almost unimaginable in the years before. Subsequently, bombs could be as small, only the holy terror is thus far as massive. In this light, scientists and engineers have concocted devices to help alleviate this threat to society.Unfortunately, to this date, grimace light engineering in public places remains ineffective, as it nonwithstandingtide violates mints right to privacy. in that location argon galore(postnominal) reasons poop the pursuit of this engine room. There atomic number 18 fountainheads and ethical concerns behind the arguments. However, superstar keep be real that this engine room is unchanging at its tender stop and should not be enjoyment until it is at the state of perfection. In this light, this es enounce aims to strain light to certain issues regarding th is matter.First, this kind of engineering is still not foolproof. It does not accurately identify terrorists. Second, it has a strong likely drop for misuse and abuse. It has been used without the consent or knowledge of the battalion, violating their right to privacy.Last, the expected onward motion in security is not warrant by its costs.These ar the basic inquiries unrivalled should be able to deliberate on regarding the matter.Face mention teechnology is yet to prove its charge to the society. It was found out during tests that it has failed at 38% of the cases. Boston reported that the techonology aimed to point a terrorist from the crowd by comparing the images with those in their trunk. What came out was a depressing failure.The engineering science was still too objective that it failed to aim exquisite changes on the faces of these mickle. This was only done a test run in a rather select sample. What more(prenominal) could have happened if this was a real deportment scenario?In this light, one can say that when it failed at that percentage, the system chose innocent people. These people could be passers-by, simply coincidental that they were there when the system detected them. It cannot be helped that even total strangers have similar characteristics, and the system was unable to be accurate on this aspect.This engineering is still inaccurate. A souls face could change all in all even when there were minor changes to his holy look. The accuracy of the technology also relies on how similar the image is in similitude to the image in the system, a slight different in lighting and fish can alter the face of the soulfulness.In this case, a terrorist may not be detected, and in its place is an innocent mortal. In this light, first principle News also mentioned that if this is the condition of the technology, because two stangers will look more a akin than two different pictures of the homogeneous person.Face recognition techno logy cannot be tryed on a real life situation. It would be more than a risk. It would have been a mistake.Barnaby Feder of the New York Times also mentioned that this technology was quite a promising firearm against terrorism. However, their tests also failed. The technology experienced difficulty. On the other hand, there atomic number 18 establishments who already use the technology in question, like casinos.It was mentioned in the term that face recognition technology could be a fate in more establishments in the future. Unfortunately, with the presense of skeptisms and blemished eperiments, producers of this technology ar yet to mark their points in history.They atomic number 18 inproving over the years, hardly they have not come up with the technology that will find dead watch the face of a person to the database, and therefore a suspicious person or a criminal. Alice Lipowicz of Washington technology wrote that the technology failed in another(prenominal) experiment at the Super Bowl in 2001.When the technology was used, it came out with too many an(prenominal) false positives that they immediately called the experiment a total failure.Another argument against this technology is brought nearly by the fact that this has great potential for misuse and abuse. Given that the people atomic number 18 be viewed by a television camera and objectively scrutinized by the system and database, one person is studied and judged by it. Furthermore, it is not only the faces that these cameras capture.It also captures the actions that these people are doing. That is not the object of the technology, but because the system is trying to ID everyone who could match a certain culprit, this technology is peremptory the essense of the persons actions.He is judged by his face and actions when he shouldnt be judged at all. He shouldnt even be watched by another person who might have biases and prejudices. This, by itself, is an ethical question should these peo ple be watched? Who are watching them?Lipowicz also mentioned that the technology is crawling close to becoming unethical. The article mentioned that when drivers are given their license, their pictures are interpreted into a face recognition database and used for future investigative purposes.Before these people are even able to know rough investigations their names and faces are already affair of the system for scrutiny and matching. This becomes a question in peoples minds because it can be related to intrusive surveillance and tracking, as mentioned in the same article. This means that even if the people are not involved, because of the technology, they are made involved in the system.Unfortunately, this is still an expanding research as the technology is updated and organizations, especially the government, make use of it. scorn the concern on peoples privacy, perhaps they opted to choose the larger purpose of its creation the safety of the people against terror. Those wh o are trying to protect the people should project this who are they defend?From whom are they defend these people? Why are they protecting these people? If their tools would be objective in detecting the faces of these suspicious people, then their objectives as human beings should be objective as well. Are they judging the person base on what they see on hiding?Are they judging them based on the name on which that face matches? If the face and name was ill matched, should they still be judged? Perhaps when those behind the cameras, with the database at hand, are able to answer this, then they should be able to bring brighter light to the situation.Furthermore, this technology captures peoples faces and identities without the consent or knowledge of the person. It is always important, as it is ethical, for a person to be told that he or she is going to be watched. Although doing this gives potential to a change in their behavior piece of music being watched, the people should always be told when the cameras are on them.The reason behind giving the consent is that the people should reconcile that they are being watched for the benefit of everyones safety. They should be informed of their objectives, like decision the terrorist among the crowd. In relation to their right to privacy, they should be able to act upon their wish without being judged by it.In a crowd, they could be on a phone call or talking with a friend, and those actions may nude negative implications depending on how those behind the cameras are looking at them.This is also to sustain the possibility of having those observations used for something else. As mentioned earlier, this technology has the potential for misuse and abuse. Just because these people are able to retrieve selective information via these cameras does not mean that they should freely use these.If the information is to be compared to another bunch retrieved from another location, then the person is objectifiedoverlook ing the fact that he is human and laughable from everybody else. Stereotyping, biases and prejudices could rise and add greater problems to the technology, despite its already faulty results in determination terrorists.Last, in todays rearing pace, technology never comes cheaply. By the commentary of the technology alone, one is given the propose of how much it could cost. There are no exact digits for the curious mind, but there is an implied sum of money.The technology is able to measure, study, compare and match random faces to those already in the database. The scrutinizing wreak by which this technology aimed to protect the people could be very extensive that one could only think about the many brilliant minds that worked together to create the prototype. Although the technology is not yet full proof, it is still expensive.In this light, if the technology is not yet at its best, why should anyone make use of it? Although given over with the package is the promise that t hey could be safer, the disadvantages still seemes to outweight its benefits. As mentioned in this article, face recognition technology is still a ontogeny study.To prematurely use it, while at the same time paying a high amount for it, would not allow the technology to perform its promiselike of any mathematical product the output worthy of the amount.