Milliron’s Privacy was Invaded by Face Recognition Technology

Rob Milliron, a construction worker, was enjoying his lunch in an entertainment bea of Tampa, Florida, when a government camera equipped with impertinence identification applied science took his photograph. The photo was employ without Millirons consent in an article published in the U. S. News & World Report. When a woman in Oklahoma misidentified Milliron after seeing that photo and contacted the patrol department to have him arrested on child neglect charges, the man in the picture was forced to apologise his innocence to lawfulness enforcement agencies.He told a newspaper once his explanation had been accepted They made me regain like a criminal (Alexander & Richert-Boe). This case raises ethical concerns regarding governmental use of facial recognition surveillance. Although common use of this engineering is yet to be realized in the United States, its future in areas of auspices and earth safety appears rather promising. However, as Millirons case shows, there is a n issue of legality that federal official statutes have not yet addressed with reference to face recognition surveillance.In order to register the legality of face recognition technology, we have to bring into consideration the Fourth Amendment (Bennett, 2001). The United States Supreme chat up held in Katz v. United States that the Fourth Amendment would afford constitutional protection in those areas in which an individual slightly expects silence. For a private or public space to be recognized as one that is outside the bounds of search, both the individual occupying the space as well society must recognize privacy interest in the space in question.Courts allow the use of photo surveillance only in places where people 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 fact tha t 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 likely that courts will take the same sexual climax 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 thoroughfare are subject to a police 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 winning of urine samples that the Fourth Amendments searches involve. Moreover, the Supreme Court has maintained that new technological devices that enhance the senses of law enforcement are enti rely constitutional.The Supreme Court has further held that observations using 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 also 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 terror to the security 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 publishing of the photo as use of information 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 security reasons, it should ordain 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 gibe to have their photos published with the caption, You cant hide those lying eyes in Tampa, as did Millirons photo in the U. S. News & World 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.