Milliron’s Privacy was Invaded by Face Recognition Technology

so enforce Milliron, a construction worker, was enjoying his lunch in an entertainment field of honor of T ampa, Florida, when a authorities camera equipped with face realisation applied science took his break down. The impression was spendd without Millirons consent in an article promulgated in the U. S. News & globe Report. When a woman in okeh misidentified Milliron after seeing that word picture and contacted the natural law force department to confine him arrested on electric razor neglect charges, the man in the point was forced to explain his innocence to constabulary enforcement agencies.He told a cleanspaper one time his explanation had been accepted They made me liveliness like a criminal (Alexander & Richert-Boe). This case raises ethical concerns regarding governmental usage of s sluiceth cranial nerve citation oversight. Although common use of this technology is yet to be recognise in the United States, its future in aras of hostage and domain safety appears rather promising. However, as Millirons case shows, in that respect is an issue of legality that federal statutes have non yet addressed with cite to face intelligence surveillance.In effect to understand the legality of face recognition technology, we have to bring into consideration the one-fourth Amendment (Bennett, 2001). The United States Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States that the Fourth Amendment would afford thorough protection in those areas in which an psyche reasonably expects privacy. For a private or public situation to be recognise as one that is outside the jump of search, both the individual occupying the space as salubrious society must neck privacy interest in the space in question.Courts allow the use of image surveillance only in places where nation do not have comely expectations of privacy. These places may include sidewalks as well as public streets, workplaces in addition to entertainment areas (Bennett). Becau se Milliron should not have expect privacy in the public area he occupied, the fact that government cameras took his fritter away loafernot be considered unethical.Benett writes that courts have found repeatedly that warrantless video surveillance of public areas does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and it seems likely that courts go out take the same approach toward public surveillance systems incorporating facial recognition package (164). This is true despite the fact that facial recognition technology is marked by an unreasonable privacy invasion, and all individuals in the cameras path are subject to a police card (Kasindorf, 2001).Bennetts claim that face recognition technology would not have a conflict with the Fourth Amendment is based on the fact that the new technology does not involve the kind of physical intrusion, such as the drawing of blood or the taking of urine samples that the Fourth Amendments searches involve. Moreover, the Supreme Court has maintained th at new technological devices that enhance the senses of law enforcement are unaccompanied constitutional.The Supreme Court has move on held that observations using technologies such as biometrics are made in areas where the police have a clear dear to be present. Such observations are a part of plain view surveillance that may also be performed without the technology in question. Finally, it has been maintained that no technology may be considered an intrusion where the lose of the technology poses a threat to the certificate of the people (Bennett). Although this line of reasoning is entirely acceptable, the fact remains that Millirons photograph was used without his consent.His subsequent experience with the photo was uncomfortable enough to refer to the publication of the photo as misuse of tuition on the part of the government. It was an invasion of Millirons privacy to publish the photo without his consent. So, even though the government is correct to use face recognition surveillance in public places for credentials reasons, it should vow never to misuse the information it gathers thus for security reasons alone.Milliron and other members of the general public should be asked whether they would agree to have their photos published with the caption, You cant hide those lying eye in Tampa, as did Millirons photo in the U. S. News & foundation Report (Alexander & Richert-Boe). Clearly, the government should be held as a lawbreaker if it takes photographs for security reasons and publishes them for other reasons.