Golfistry

Reference Information

• Title: Rite Aid used facial recognition on shoppers, fueling harassment, FTC says
• Author: Drew Harwell
• Publication: The Washington Post
• Publication Date: December 19, 2023
• URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/12/19/ftc-rite-aid-facial-recognition/

Summary

The article discusses a significant issue involving the pharmacy chain Rite Aid’s misuse of facial recognition technology, which led to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stepping in. Between 2012 and 2020, Rite Aid implemented facial recognition in hundreds of its stores with the intention of identifying shoplifters and problematic customers. However, the lack of safeguards and the inherent inaccuracies and racial biases of the technology resulted in numerous false accusations against shoppers. These incidents led to embarrassment, harassment, and emotional distress among affected individuals, including a notable case where an 11-year-old girl was wrongfully searched, and a Black customer was mistaken for a White woman.

The FTC’s investigation culminated in a landmark settlement where Rite Aid agreed to discontinue the use of facial recognition technology for five years, delete all collected facial images, and provide annual compliance updates to the FTC. This case highlights the broader implications and concerns surrounding the use of facial recognition in public spaces, including potential racial profiling and privacy violations. The FTC’s action against Rite Aid could have ripple effects across other retail chains in the U.S. that utilize such technology, emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive privacy laws and ethical considerations in the deployment of surveillance technologies.

Ethically Relevant Issues Raised by the Article

The handling of the issues related to Rite Aid’s use of facial recognition technology, as outlined in the article, has several aspects that can be considered ethically problematic or unethical. Here’s a breakdown based on the identified issues:

1. Privacy and Surveillance: The deployment of facial recognition without informing customers or obtaining their consent is ethically concerning. It prioritizes surveillance over personal privacy rights, which is generally considered unethical, especially in contexts where individuals do not expect to be monitored in such an intrusive manner.
2. Accuracy and Racial Bias: The use of a technology known to have accuracy issues, especially with a tendency towards racial bias, is ethically problematic. Implementing a system that disproportionately misidentifies women, Black people, and Latinos without addressing these biases or considering the consequences of such errors leans towards unethical practice. It perpetuates inequality and can cause harm to already marginalized groups.
3. Consumer Consent: Not informing consumers about the surveillance technology breaches ethical norms around transparency and consent. Ethically, individuals should have the option to make informed decisions about whether they wish to be subjected to such monitoring, especially when it involves sensitive biometric data.
4. Targeted Surveillance and Racial Profiling: The apparent targeting of stores in non-White areas for deployment of facial recognition technology raises serious ethical concerns regarding racial profiling and discrimination. Such practices can reinforce societal biases and exacerbate feelings of discrimination and alienation among marginalized communities, which is unethical.
5. Impact on Individuals: The distress and harm caused to individuals who were falsely identified or felt unfairly targeted by the surveillance system indicate a lack of ethical consideration for the well-being and dignity of those affected. Ethical practices would necessitate measures to minimize harm and ensure fairness, which seems to have been neglected in this case.
6. Regulatory Compliance and Corporate Responsibility: The violation of a previous FTC order and the failure to implement robust safeguards against misuse of the technology demonstrate a disregard for regulatory compliance and corporate responsibility. Ethically, corporations are expected to act responsibly, especially when their actions can have significant impacts on privacy, security, and public trust.

In summary, the handling of facial recognition technology by Rite Aid, as described, exhibits several unethical practices, primarily due to the lack of transparency, consent, and consideration for the privacy and well-being of individuals, alongside the deployment of a biased and inaccurate system that disproportionately affects marginalized communities.

The resolution of the issues surrounding Rite Aid’s use of facial recognition technology, as reported, suggests some steps towards addressing the ethical concerns but also indicates areas where additional measures could enhance ethical handling. To evaluate the resolution and suggest further steps, I will reference the ethical framework of Kantianism (or deontology), which emphasizes the importance of treating individuals as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an end.

Ethical Assessment Based on Kantianism

1. Respect for Persons and Privacy:

• Current Handling: The settlement to stop using the technology and delete collected facial images respects individuals’ rights and privacy to some extent. It acknowledges the harm done by the misuse of technology.
• Kantian Perspective: Kantian ethics would argue that using people’s images without consent treats them as means to an end (security, in this case) rather than respecting their autonomy and dignity. The settlement aligns with Kantian principles by ceasing the use of technology that violates personal autonomy.
• Additional Steps: An ethical response, from a Kantian viewpoint, would also involve Rite Aid (and similar entities) obtaining explicit consent before deploying surveillance technologies, ensuring individuals are fully informed and voluntarily participating in any system that affects them.

1. Accuracy and Bias:

• Current Handling: The acknowledgment of the technology’s inaccuracy and bias, especially against marginalized groups, suggests an awareness of the issue. However, the resolution does not explicitly address measures to correct these biases.
• Kantian Perspective: Treating individuals equitably is a core tenet of Kantian ethics. Implementing technology that systematically misidentifies certain groups fails to treat all individuals with equal respect and dignity.
• Additional Steps: Ethically, it would be imperative to develop and implement more accurate and unbiased technologies before any future use. This involves rigorous testing for bias and the establishment of transparent oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability and fairness.

1. Transparency and Consumer Consent:

• Current Handling: The settlement implies a future commitment to transparency by agreeing to update the FTC on compliance. However, past actions lacked transparency and did not seek consumer consent.
• Kantian Perspective: Kantian ethics demands honesty and transparency in interactions, viewing deceptive practices or omissions as disrespectful to individuals’ autonomy. The failure to inform customers about the surveillance and to obtain their consent is unethical under this framework.
• Additional Steps: Going forward, it is crucial to establish clear policies that prioritize consumer awareness and consent for any surveillance or data collection technologies, ensuring customers are treated as autonomous agents.

1. Addressing Harms and Making Amends:

• Current Handling: The settlement addresses harms indirectly through ceasing the practice and deleting data but does not mention compensation or direct amends to those unjustly affected.
• Kantian Perspective: Making amends for wrongdoing is essential in respecting the dignity and rights of those harmed. Kantian ethics would support actions that rectify past harms and restore individuals’ rights.
• Additional Steps: Rite Aid and similar entities should consider direct compensation or support to individuals who were negatively impacted by the facial recognition system, particularly those who faced false accusations or other harms.

Conclusion

While the settlement and Rite Aid’s response to the FTC’s findings take steps towards addressing the ethical concerns raised by their use of facial recognition technology, a Kantian ethical analysis suggests that further measures are necessary. These include enhancing transparency, ensuring future technologies are deployed with explicit consent, improving accuracy and fairness, and directly addressing the harms caused to affected individuals. Such steps would better align with the ethical principles of respecting autonomy, ensuring fairness, and treating all individuals as ends in themselves.