Public attitudes towards the use of automatic facial recognition technology in criminal justice systems around the world

• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258241
• Publication Date: 2021-10-13T18:52:49Z
• Authors: Kay L. Ritchie; Charlotte Cartledge; Bethany Growns; An Yan; Yuqing Wang; Kun Guo; Robin S. S. Kramer; Gary Edmond; Kristy A. Martire; Mehera San Roque; David White
• Keywords: Adult; Male; Adolescent; Science; Automated Facial Recognition; anzsrc-for: 46 Information and Computing Sciences; anzsrc-for: 48 Law and Legal Studies; algorithms; Trust; 16 Peace; Young Adult; C810 Applied Psychology; 46 Information and Computing Sciences; Criminal Law; Surveys and Questionnaires; 80 and over; Humans; anzsrc-for: 44 Human Society; C800 - Psychology; 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences; anzsrc-for: 4402 Criminology; 44 Human Society; 48 Law and Legal Studies; crime; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; police; criminal justice system; Q; 05 social sciences; face; R; 4805 Legal Systems; C810 - Applied psychology; 4402 Criminology; Middle Aged; 16. Peace & justice; C800 Psychology; Justice and Strong Institutions; anzsrc-for: 4805 Legal Systems; 300; Attitude; Public Opinion; Medicine; Female; face recognition; Research Article

Automatic facial recognition technology (AFR) is increasingly used in criminal justice systems around the world, yet to date there has not been an international survey of public attitudes toward its use. In Study 1, we ran focus groups in the UK, Australia and China (countries at different stages of adopting AFR) and in Study 2 we collected data from over 3,000 participants in the UK, Australia and the USA using a questionnaire investigating attitudes towards AFR use in criminal justice systems. Our results showed that although overall participants were aligned in their attitudes and reasoning behind them, there were some key differences across countries. People in the USA were more accepting of tracking citizens, more accepting of private companies’ use of AFR, and less trusting of the police using AFR than people in the UK and Australia. Our results showed that support for the use of AFR depends greatly on what the technology is used for and who it is used by. We recommend vendors and users do more to explain AFR use, including details around accuracy and data protection. We also recommend that governments should set legal boundaries around the use of AFR in investigative and criminal justice settings.