Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • Facial Recognition: More Peril than Promise?
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO21024 | Facial Recognition: More Peril than Promise?
    Manoj Harjani

    10 February 2021

    download pdf

    SYNOPSIS

    The use of facial recognition to identify perpetrators of the US Capitol riot comes at a time of burgeoning debate about when and how such technology should be used, and by whom. In the Singapore context, we should anticipate greater calls for accountability and measures to strengthen public trust as facial recognition is deployed within Smart Nation initiatives.

    COMMENTARY

    FOLLOWING THE events that transpired at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, American law enforcement agencies have turned to facial recognition technology to identify perpetrators and bring them to justice.

    Techno-optimists bullish about the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to transform daily life will see such usage of facial recognition technology as yet another example of AI’s promise. However, it comes at a time of burgeoning debate in the United States and elsewhere on when and how facial recognition technology should be deployed, and by whom.

    Exposed: The Darker Side of Facial Recognition

    Facial recognition was not the only AI-powered technology brought under the spotlight following the US Capitol riot. The White House had to debunk a social media post claiming that video footage of President Trump disavowing the rioters was a deepfake.

    As AI luminary Andrew Ng has astutely observed, the primary peril from AI is not from a rogue superintelligence, but from how humans use AI. This further underscores the need for appropriate governance of facial recognition technology – and AI more generally – at a time when it is tempting to deprioritise such endeavours given the many challenges demanding policymakers’ attention.

    The past few years have seen the darker side of facial recognition technology exposed as part of a broader reconsideration to develop and deploy AI ethically and in the public interest.

    Extensive media reporting in 2019 and 2020 shed light on collaborations between China’s tech giants and their government to deploy facial recognition systems specifically targeting the Uighur minority. In the US, the George Floyd protests against police brutality that began in mid-2020 prompted a backlash against surveillance driven by facial recognition technology.

    Nevertheless, there has been little effective regulation governing the development, sale and use of facial recognition technology, which continues to attract considerable interest from governments and law enforcement agencies globally. In a 2019 report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that at least 75 countries were actively using facial recognition technology.

    Irresistible Crutch for Law Enforcement

    American law enforcement agencies were quick to employ facial recognition technology following the US Capitol riot. US-based facial recognition startup Clearview AI reported a 26 percent increase in searches by law enforcement agencies on January 7, 2021 over its usual weekday search volume.

    This is significant because Clearview claims that more than 2,400 law enforcement agencies across the US use its software – this despite the startup coming under fire for its data scraping practices.

    If Clearview’s claims are to be believed, the recent public backlash against facial recognition technology – supported by a growing body of research documenting the propensity for gender and ethnic bias – appears to have largely been ignored by American law enforcement agencies.

    With only scattered city and state-level regulations at present, there are few incentives for law enforcement agencies to give up using facial recognition technology. Furthermore, tech giants such as Amazon, IBM and Microsoft have already lined up lobbying resources to shape any future federal regulations proposed by the Biden administration and Democrat-controlled Congress.

    Smart City Solutions: Pros & Cons

    Of potentially greater long-term concern, however, is the export of facial recognition and other surveillance technologies as part of smart city solutions, particularly by Chinese tech companies. A 2020 report by the Brookings Institution highlighted that at least 80 countries had adopted Chinese surveillance and public security technology platforms since 2008.

    This bundling of facial recognition and other surveillance technologies into broader smart city solutions conveniently sidesteps the need to seek societal consent for their adoption. This is generally the case as smart city initiatives are often presented as essential for future economic growth and improved public service delivery.

    Furthermore, by treating the deployment of these technologies as inevitable, little or no consideration is given to legitimate concerns regarding gender and ethnic bias. This poses a significant obstacle to implementing ethical principles and frameworks governing the development, sale and use of facial recognition technology and AI more generally.

    Facial Recognition in Singapore: Accountability & Public Trust

    The use of facial recognition technology in Singapore predates the government’s Smart Nation effort, with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority deploying it at Singapore’s borders since 2012.

    However, no data is publicly available on the efficacy of this facial recognition system, or whether it has been subject to an audit to determine its susceptibility to gender and ethnic bias. While Singapore has developed a Model AI Governance Framework, this has primarily been pitched as a guide for the private sector.

    At the same time, concerns are likely to grow as the government rolls out facial recognition in other areas of public service delivery as part of the Smart Nation push. These include “crowd analytics” via “smart lamp posts” and “face verification” to access government digital services via SingPass.

    Calls for the Singapore government to account for its development and deployment of facial recognition technology – and AI more generally – are likely to follow as public awareness matures.

    While the government is well-placed to address these concerns, it needs to develop a direct understanding of the public’s perspectives and attitudes towards facial recognition and other AI-powered technologies. Engagement through surveys can help in this regard, and results can guide the pace and extent of implementation. Such engagement should be bolstered by public communication efforts.

    Building up public trust in facial recognition technology will undoubtedly be a long-term effort. For a start – and to signal openness – the government could apply the Model AI Governance Framework to its own systems and audit them for compliance. Over time, this can be codified into formalised legal protections and mechanisms for seeking redress that apply to both the private and public sectors.

    About the Author

    Manoj Harjani is a Research Fellow with the Future Issues and Technology research cluster, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Cybersecurity, Biosecurity and Nuclear Safety / International Politics and Security / Singapore and Homeland Security / East Asia and Asia Pacific / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN / Global
    comments powered by Disqus

    SYNOPSIS

    The use of facial recognition to identify perpetrators of the US Capitol riot comes at a time of burgeoning debate about when and how such technology should be used, and by whom. In the Singapore context, we should anticipate greater calls for accountability and measures to strengthen public trust as facial recognition is deployed within Smart Nation initiatives.

    COMMENTARY

    FOLLOWING THE events that transpired at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, American law enforcement agencies have turned to facial recognition technology to identify perpetrators and bring them to justice.

    Techno-optimists bullish about the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to transform daily life will see such usage of facial recognition technology as yet another example of AI’s promise. However, it comes at a time of burgeoning debate in the United States and elsewhere on when and how facial recognition technology should be deployed, and by whom.

    Exposed: The Darker Side of Facial Recognition

    Facial recognition was not the only AI-powered technology brought under the spotlight following the US Capitol riot. The White House had to debunk a social media post claiming that video footage of President Trump disavowing the rioters was a deepfake.

    As AI luminary Andrew Ng has astutely observed, the primary peril from AI is not from a rogue superintelligence, but from how humans use AI. This further underscores the need for appropriate governance of facial recognition technology – and AI more generally – at a time when it is tempting to deprioritise such endeavours given the many challenges demanding policymakers’ attention.

    The past few years have seen the darker side of facial recognition technology exposed as part of a broader reconsideration to develop and deploy AI ethically and in the public interest.

    Extensive media reporting in 2019 and 2020 shed light on collaborations between China’s tech giants and their government to deploy facial recognition systems specifically targeting the Uighur minority. In the US, the George Floyd protests against police brutality that began in mid-2020 prompted a backlash against surveillance driven by facial recognition technology.

    Nevertheless, there has been little effective regulation governing the development, sale and use of facial recognition technology, which continues to attract considerable interest from governments and law enforcement agencies globally. In a 2019 report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that at least 75 countries were actively using facial recognition technology.

    Irresistible Crutch for Law Enforcement

    American law enforcement agencies were quick to employ facial recognition technology following the US Capitol riot. US-based facial recognition startup Clearview AI reported a 26 percent increase in searches by law enforcement agencies on January 7, 2021 over its usual weekday search volume.

    This is significant because Clearview claims that more than 2,400 law enforcement agencies across the US use its software – this despite the startup coming under fire for its data scraping practices.

    If Clearview’s claims are to be believed, the recent public backlash against facial recognition technology – supported by a growing body of research documenting the propensity for gender and ethnic bias – appears to have largely been ignored by American law enforcement agencies.

    With only scattered city and state-level regulations at present, there are few incentives for law enforcement agencies to give up using facial recognition technology. Furthermore, tech giants such as Amazon, IBM and Microsoft have already lined up lobbying resources to shape any future federal regulations proposed by the Biden administration and Democrat-controlled Congress.

    Smart City Solutions: Pros & Cons

    Of potentially greater long-term concern, however, is the export of facial recognition and other surveillance technologies as part of smart city solutions, particularly by Chinese tech companies. A 2020 report by the Brookings Institution highlighted that at least 80 countries had adopted Chinese surveillance and public security technology platforms since 2008.

    This bundling of facial recognition and other surveillance technologies into broader smart city solutions conveniently sidesteps the need to seek societal consent for their adoption. This is generally the case as smart city initiatives are often presented as essential for future economic growth and improved public service delivery.

    Furthermore, by treating the deployment of these technologies as inevitable, little or no consideration is given to legitimate concerns regarding gender and ethnic bias. This poses a significant obstacle to implementing ethical principles and frameworks governing the development, sale and use of facial recognition technology and AI more generally.

    Facial Recognition in Singapore: Accountability & Public Trust

    The use of facial recognition technology in Singapore predates the government’s Smart Nation effort, with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority deploying it at Singapore’s borders since 2012.

    However, no data is publicly available on the efficacy of this facial recognition system, or whether it has been subject to an audit to determine its susceptibility to gender and ethnic bias. While Singapore has developed a Model AI Governance Framework, this has primarily been pitched as a guide for the private sector.

    At the same time, concerns are likely to grow as the government rolls out facial recognition in other areas of public service delivery as part of the Smart Nation push. These include “crowd analytics” via “smart lamp posts” and “face verification” to access government digital services via SingPass.

    Calls for the Singapore government to account for its development and deployment of facial recognition technology – and AI more generally – are likely to follow as public awareness matures.

    While the government is well-placed to address these concerns, it needs to develop a direct understanding of the public’s perspectives and attitudes towards facial recognition and other AI-powered technologies. Engagement through surveys can help in this regard, and results can guide the pace and extent of implementation. Such engagement should be bolstered by public communication efforts.

    Building up public trust in facial recognition technology will undoubtedly be a long-term effort. For a start – and to signal openness – the government could apply the Model AI Governance Framework to its own systems and audit them for compliance. Over time, this can be codified into formalised legal protections and mechanisms for seeking redress that apply to both the private and public sectors.

    About the Author

    Manoj Harjani is a Research Fellow with the Future Issues and Technology research cluster, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Cybersecurity, Biosecurity and Nuclear Safety / International Politics and Security / Singapore and Homeland Security

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info