Here’s where the US government is using facial recognition technology to surveil Americans

There’s a good chance if you live in the US that at some point you’ve been watched, scanned, or analyzed by facial recognition technology — potentially without even realizing it.

Across the country, government use of the technology — which identifies people by matching unique characteristics of their facial patterns to databases of images — is on the rise. Critics say it poses a serious threat to Americans’ privacy by enabling rapid and unwarranted monitoring of citizens. But the extent of facial recognition has been, until recently, relatively private from the public. That’s why researchers are increasingly trying to quantify just how widely it’s being used.

A map from the digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future visualizes just how often US law enforcement agencies use this software to scan through millions of Americans’ photos — often without their knowledge or consent.

While the map isn’t exhaustive, it is one of the most comprehensive guides showing how common facial recognition use is becoming. The map compiles existing data from the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law, news reports, press releases, and other sources.

Some examples: In several states, including Texas, Florida, and Illinois, the FBI is allowed to use facial recognition technology to scan through DMV databases of drivers’ license photos. In many US airports, Customs and Border Protection now uses facial recognition to screen passengers on international flights. And in cities such as Baltimore, police have used facial recognition software to identify and arrest individuals at protests.

Fight for the Future’s map shows where and how the government is applying facial recognition, as well as legislative challenges to the tech’s rollout. It’s part of the organization’s campaign for a nationwide ban on facial recognition technology — something lawmakers across the US have begun to explore.

While Congress hasn’t introduced any legislation for an all-out ban, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns about the technology in recent oversight hearings. In the past few months, three cities — San Francisco; Somerville, Massachusetts; and now Oakland, California — have all banned local law enforcement from using facial recognition technologies.

“I think there’s something really visceral about the idea of having your face scanned, and having a cold, emotionless piece of software make decisions that have a profound impact on people’s lives,” Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, told Recode.

Many police departments are eager to use facial recognition tools, saying they can help them more efficiently identify and arrest criminals. In a high-profile win for the technology last year, Maryland police used facial recognition technology to help correctly identify the suspect in the deadly Capital Gazette newspaper shooting. The Department of Homeland Security has also maintained that the technology can help the government more quickly screen travelers and process immigration. But researchers, privacy activists, and many elected officials warn about its risks.

Critics worry that pervasive use of facial recognition technology could have a chilling effect on free speech if people feel they’re constantly being watched. They point to China, where the government uses the software to track — and imprison — the country’s Uighur religious minority.

They also point out that facial recognition technology has been proven to perpetuate existing biases against women and minorities.

There’s still a lot of secrecy around how and where exactly facial recognition technology is used. Elected officials have criticized how ICE and the FBI scan state drivers’ license photo databases with facial recognition tech without citizens’ consent, turning “state departments of motor vehicles databases into the bedrock of an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure,” as the Washington Post first reported.

Fight for the Future’s map also details more than 600 local police partnerships with Ring, Amazon’s video surveillance doorbell that includes a social media component. Police departments have said that Ring’s technology helps them crack down on package theft — which is on the rise — as well as other local crime.

In the past several years, Ring has become one of the most tangible examples of the threats of private and public sector teaming up to create an extensive network of high tech surveillance technology. Even though the company says it’s not using facial recognition technology now — outside reports reveal that it appears to have plans to do so.

In 2018, it was revealed that the company filed patents for facial recognition tech that could identify “suspicious” people and then alert police. And in November, the Intercept reported on internal company documents planning a facial-recognition backed neighborhood “watch list” along with other proactive suspect detecting features. Its parent company Amazon conceded that it’s been a “contemplated,” but unreleased, feature after a back and forth with Congress over its efforts.

The company has told Recode “Ring does not use facial recognition technology,” and that it does not collaborate with Amazon’s controversial facial recognition tech, Rekognition.

As to whether that means Ring will use facial recognition in the future, a Ring spokesperson told Recode in October, “[A] patent filing application does not necessarily indicate current development of products and services, and like many companies, Ring files a number of forward-looking patent applications that explore the full possibilities of new technology. Ring takes the privacy and security of its customers’ extremely seriously and privacy and security will always be paramount when Ring considers applying any patents to its business or technology.” When Recode asked Ring again in December about future plans, a company spokesperson declined to answer.

So far, promises from Ring haven’t stopped politicians, civil liberties leaders, and concerned community members from fearing for the future of video-enabled surveillance technology.

It’s frightening to many that Ring is already deeply embedded with many local police departments, with no comprehensive regulation around it.

“Connected doorbells are well on their way to becoming a mainstay of American households, and the lack of privacy and civil rights protections for innocent residents is nothing short of chilling,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), who has launched an investigation into the company’s efforts, in a recent statement.

As the extent of the growing network of government uses of facial recognition technology expands, so will the scrutiny.

The U.S. government won’t release information about how it’s using facial recognition technology — so the ACLU is suing.

You can subscribe to Reset on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or Spotify.

Open Sourced is made possible by the Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.