Abstract
This paper contributes to the discussion on effective regulation of facial recognition technologies (FRT) in public spaces. In response to the growing universalization of FRT in the United States and Europe as merely intrusive technology, we propose to distinguish scenarios in which the ethical and social risks of using FRT are unattainable from other scenarios in which FRT can be adjusted to improve our everyday lives. We suggest that the general ban of FRT technologies in public spaces is not an inevitable solution. Instead, we advocate for a risk-based approach with emphasis on different use-cases that weighs moral risks and identifies appropriate countermeasures. We introduce four use-cases that focus on presence of FRT on entrances to public spaces (1) Checking identities in airports (2) Authorisation to enter office buildings (3) Checking visitors in stadiums (4) Monitoring passers-by on open streets, to illustrate the diverse ethical and social concerns and possible responses to them. Based on the different levels of ethical and societal risks and applicability of respective countermeasures, we call for a distinction of public spaces between semi-open public spaces and open public spaces. We suggest that this distinction of public spaces could not only be helpful in more effective regulation and assessment of FRT in public spaces, but also that the knowledge of different risks and countermeasures will lead to better transparency and public awareness of FRT in diverse scenarios.