By Gerald Xu
Science & Technology
The facial recognition technology (FRT) market has grown rapidly in recent years, and new products are creeping into our homes. A rising number of powerful facial recognition products are being made accessible to the public for a subscription fee, and owners of residential buildings are interested. Supporters of implementing these technologies, for controlling home access and general surveillance, praise the cost efficiency and advanced capabilities of these new systems compared to traditional security networks. Yet we should not be fooled by the appeal of this novel technology, or the small convenience of not having to carry around our home keys. The introduction of FRTs could greatly undermine tenants' rights and give landlords unwarranted power over their tenants.
Compared to security cameras equipped in most residences today, facial recognition cameras pose far greater risks when it comes to invasion of one’s privacy. A security guard watching a camera feed cannot (and will not) constantly monitor every tenant on the premises and make note of their actions. Facial recognition technologies allow property managers to do just that. With their face on file, tenants would be subject to indiscriminate, constant surveillance, turning people’s homes into a place fitting for an Orwellian novel. Facial recognition systems would be capable of tracking each tenant in real time; their activities, habits, and even interpersonal relationships, all being recorded, analyzed, and put on file.
In 2019, tenants in Atlantic Plaza Towers in New York echoed these concerns when they pushed back against their landlord's decision to introduce FRTs to the building. Although the tenants were ultimately successful in reversing management’s decision, their case revealed how the implementation process of such technologies can be riddled with abuses.
First and foremost was a lack of transparency from the landlords. A reference hidden amongst a thirty-page packet was all that informed tenants of the new decision to use FRT. Many tenants found out only from word of mouth between neighbors, and the notice only gave them three weeks to protest the decision. Had management’s shady tactic gone undiscovered, hundreds of tenants would have been surveilled without them knowing. The New York City Council enacted the Tenant Data Privacy Act (TDPA) in 2021 in an attempt to address several issues. It required landlords wanting to use biometric data for home access to obtain written consent from tenants, limited the data they could collect, and prohibited the sale or disclosure of a tenant’s biometric data.
However, the TDPA falls short in protecting tenants in many ways. For one, it only covers the use of biometric data for home access, which would not include the use of FRTs for general surveillance. The nature of a tenant’s “consent” also needs to be called into question. While tenants can refuse their landowner’s request to collect their biometric data, they are not protected from retaliatory acts that would force their compliance. Leading up to their protests, tenants in Atlantic Plaza reported being unable to access their mail without agreeing to getting their photos taken, which would supposedly be used for facial recognition. It is an alarming thought that landlords could compel their tenants to consent to the use of FRT by threatening their normal privileges. Landlords could, for example, make facial recognition the primary method of accessing all building facilities, seriously inconveniencing uncooperative tenants, or even worse, indirectly bar them from using those facilities.
Current “safeguards” against misuse of tenant biometric data also severely favor landlords. Although the TDPA provides tenants the right of action against their landlords for abuses related to their biometric data, its effects are less meaningful than it seems. Currently, tenants have no real way of knowing the type of data their landlords are collecting and where that data has gone. Thus, until we implement further legislation to ensure transparency of the data usage (beyond what the landlords choose to disclose), tenants will be left disempowered and unable to reasonably protect themselves.
While it is very encouraging to see recent legislative efforts in New York seeking to entirely prohibit the use of FRT in residential spaces, bills calling for such extreme measures have rarely found success. For now, it would be more productive to reinforce the right of tenants to opt out of FRT use in their homes and protect them from deceitful or retaliatory acts from landlords. Furthermore, it’s necessary that tenants, should they accept the use of FRT, be given more agency over their own data as a safeguard against abuses. With there currently being very few regulations and standard practices when it comes to FRT, the opportunity is ripe to shape the dialogue around protecting the rights of those who will be affected by this technology the most.
Photo: Gina Tomko/Education Week + Canva
Comentarios