Ethics Surrounding Face Recognition Technology: Metro Cards vs FACE-NY

TOPIC #3

Metro cards can be a pain. You can lose them, they can stop working, and tourists can never figure out how they work. Furthermore, the machines are hard to maintain and easy for people to jump over. It's also easy for those without cards to get swipes from anyone with an unlimited card, which prevents the city from gaining important revenue.

Now, imagine that to get around such issues, the City of New York decides to install facial recognition scanners in all subway stations. This system-called Fast and Contactless Entry-New York, of FACE-NY for short works similar to an easy pass. You put a certain amount of money into your account, and a small amount gets deducted each time you pass through an entrance gate. The way the system knows when you pass through is by scanning your face. For the system to work, you need to create an account with a face scan on your first use, but after that your account can be entirely managed from a smart phone. This means no lines to buy a new card. In fact, the new scanner-based entrance machines are built to keep out anyone without an account. Passing through the machines is also much faster than it was with the old cards because the face scanners are less prone to failures than the card scanners were. While the installation costs are high, the system costs less to maintain than the old card-based machines and also reduces the number of people who sneak onto the subway. This means that the amount of money MTA will make will increase on the whole. Shortly after release, FACE-NY is deemed a huge success.

Shortly after that MTA gets sued by Indy Wrights. Wrights argues that tying his subway use to his face violates his right to privacy and threatens his security. He argues that like FACE-NY should therefore be made illegal.

What do think should be done about Weaving and FACE-NY Is Wrights correct ihat FACE-NY is immoral and should be made illegal? Or does MTA have a right to continue with the program?

These are the questions I want you to answer in this paper. Begin by laying out the case and saying which side you will be arguing for. Your position can be a very straightforward one (e.g. Weaving is correct, nothing like FACE-NY should be allowed) or a more nuanced one (e.g. FACENY is perfectly acceptable provided that conditions X, Y, and Z are met). Then, provide the background your reader would need to understand your argument definitions and the like. Next, lay out your reasons in support of your conclusion. Doing this some of thing things you might want to consider include the ways data can be used by companies and governments to influence our lives, concerns about security, the nature of data mining, etc. You might also want to consider how someone might respond to (but you don't have to). Make sure that you present your considerations clearly and with a nice structure. Include signposts and remember to make it clear why you are saying each of the things you say. Finally, conclude with a short summary of your argument.