Cited by 203Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AILaw, AI, and Intellectual Property

The ethics of facial recognition technologies, surveillance, and accountability in an age of artificial intelligence: a comparative analysis of US, EU, and UK regulatory frameworks

Open access
Almeida, Denise, Shmarko, Konstantin, Lomas, Elizabeth·2022·AI and Ethics

Abstract

The rapid development of facial recognition technologies (FRT) has led to complex ethical choices in terms of balancing individual privacy rights versus delivering societal safety. Within this space, increasingly commonplace use of these technologies by law enforcement agencies has presented a particular lens for probing this complex landscape, its application, and the acceptable extent of citizen surveillance. This analysis focuses on the regulatory contexts and recent case law in the United States (USA), United Kingdom (UK), and European Union (EU) in terms of the use and misuse of FRT by law enforcement agencies. In the case of the USA, it is one of the main global regions in which the technology is being rapidly evolved, and yet, it has a patchwork of legislation with less emphasis on data protection and privacy. Within the context of the EU and the UK, there has been a critical focus on the development of accountability requirements particularly when considered in the context of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the legal focus on Privacy by Design (PbD). However, globally, there is no standardised human rights framework and regulatory requirements that can be easily applied to FRT rollout. This article contains a discursive discussion considering the complexity of the ethical and regulatory dimensions at play in these spaces including considering data protection and human rights frameworks. It concludes that data protection impact assessments (DPIA) and human rights impact assessments together with greater transparency, regulation, audit and explanation of FRT use, and application in individual contexts would improve FRT deployments. In addition, it sets out ten critical questions which it suggests need to be answered for the successful development and deployment of FRT and AI more broadly. It is suggested that these should be answered by lawmakers, policy makers, AI developers, and adopters.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s43681-021-00077-w

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 13 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [26]Chabinsky, S. and Pittman, P. F. (2020) 'USA', in Hickman, T. and Gabel, D. (eds.) Data Protection Laws and Regulations 2020: Global Legal Group.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Almeida, D., Shmarko, K., & Lomas, E.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Almeida, Denise
Venue
AI and Ethics
Published
2021-07-29
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
377-387
ISSN
  • 2730-5953 (ISSN-L)
  • 2730-5961
OpenAlex
W3186337419
Cited by
203
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 3
FWCI
177.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI and Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University College London
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Keywords
facial recognition technology, surveillance, law enforcement, right to privacy, data protection, General Data Protection Regulation, privacy by design, accountability, AI regulation, data protection impact assessment, human rights impact assessment, comparative regulation, United States, European Union, United Kingdom, transparency, algorithmic auditing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review