Milliron’s Privacy was Invaded by Face Recognition Technology

Rob Milliron, a gimmick worker, was enjoying his lunch in an entertainment area of Tampa, Florida, when a government tv camera equipped with side wisdom technology took his motion-picture showgraph. The photo was engaged without Millirons consent in an article published in the U. S. News & small-arm Report. When a woman in Oklahoma misidentified Milliron after seeing that photo and contacted the law of nature department to have him arrested on child neglect charges, the man in the picture was forced to explain his innocence to law enforcement agencies.He told a newspaper once his explanation had been accepted They made me life like a criminal (Alexander & Richert-Boe). This case raises ethical concerns regarding governmental use of facial recognition charge. Although common use of this technology is yet to be realized in the United States, its future in areas of bail and exoteric safety appears rather promising. However, as Millirons case shows, there is an essence of l egality that federal statutes have non yet addressed with speech to face recognition surveillance.In order to understand the legality of face recognition technology, we have to bring into consideration the fourth part Amendment (Bennett, 2001). The United States imperative Court held in Katz v. United States that the Fourth Amendment would afford constitutional apology in those areas in which an individual reasonably expects privacy. For a private or public space to be recognized as one that is outdoor(a) the bounds of search, both the individual occupying the space as well lodge must recognize privacy interest in the space in question.Courts allow the use of video surveillance only in places where heap do not have reasonable expectations of privacy. These places may include sidewalks as well as public streets, workplaces in addition to entertainment areas (Bennett). Because Milliron should not have expected privacy in the public area he occupied, the point that government cameras took his photograph cannot 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 plausibly that courts will take the same approach toward public surveillance systems incorporating facial recognition software (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 force lineup (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 that new technological devices that kick upstairs the senses of law enforcement are entirely const itutional.The Supreme Court has further held that observations development technologies such as biometrics are made in areas where the police have a clear right to be present. Such observations are a part of plain view surveillance that may as well as be performed without the technology in question. Finally, it has been maintained that no technology may be considered an intrusion where the lack of the technology poses a threat to the warrantor 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 bountiful to refer to the publishing of the photo as misuse of study on the part of the government. It was an invasion of Millirons privacy to publish the photo without his consent. So, evening though the government is correct to use face recognition surveillance in public places for security reasons, it should vow never to misus e the information it gathers thus for security reasons alone.Milliron and other members of the general public should be asked whether they would deem to have their photos published with the caption, You cant hide those lying look in Tampa, as did Millirons photo in the U. S. News & human being 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.