Saving Face: Investigating the Ethical Concerns of Facial Recognition Auditing
Open accessAbstract
Although essential to revealing biased performance, well intentioned attempts at algorithmic auditing can have effects that may harm the very populations these measures are meant to protect. This concern is even more salient while auditing biometric systems such as facial recognition, where the data is sensitive and the technology is often used in ethically questionable manners. We demonstrate a set of five ethical concerns in the particular case of auditing commercial facial processing technology, highlighting additional design considerations and ethical tensions the auditor needs to be aware of so as not exacerbate or complement the harms propagated by the audited system. We go further to provide tangible illustrations of these concerns, and conclude by reflecting on what these concerns mean for the role of the algorithmic audit and the fundamental product limitations they reveal.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The challenges associated with selecting subgroups for fairness assessment are well-documented by Raji et al. [52] and Barocas et al. [5], who note that intersectional and/or rare groups are often hard to identify and underrepresented in the data.
“The challenges associated with selecting subgroups for fairness assessment are well-documented by Raji et al. [52] and Barocas et al. [5], who note that intersectional and/or rare groups are often hard to identify and underrepresented in the data.”
From Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem (2022) · cites this paper as [52]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 69
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [2][2] Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code . John Wiley & Sons. -
- [6][6] Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proc. of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT) . -
- [11][11] Lord Clement-Jones. 2019. Automated Facial Recognition Technology (Moratorium and Review) Bill [HL] 2019-20. https://services.parliament.uk/bills/201920/automatedfacialrecognitiontechnologymoratoriumandreview.html -
- [36][36] Kristina Murphy. 2003. Procedural justice and tax compliance. Australian Journal of Social Issues (Australian Council of Social Service) 38, 3 (2003). -
- Authors
- Raji, I. D., Gebru, T., Mitchell, M., Buolamwini, J., Lee, J., & Denton, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Google (United States) (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2001.00964
- OpenAlex
- W2997390712
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- algorithmic auditing, face recognition, biometric systems, algorithmic fairness, ethical considerations, sensitive data, algorithmic accountability
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
