Topic: Banning Facial Recognition Technology

Affirmative: Grady Jakobsberg and Lucas Craig

Negative: Jack Russ and Willa Murphy
Resolution: Be it resolved that government will ban the use of facial recognition technology by the
end of the year 2017.
Debate Schedule
1AC -- First Affirmative Constructive Speech
5 minutes
Positive uses of the technology/where it has been successful
2N1A -- Second Negative Crosses First Affirmative
1 minute
Prepare quotes and statistics to back up original arguments
1NC -- First Negative Constructive Speech
5 minutes
Be planning cross examination question
Take one minute break between to discuss questions
1A1N -- First Affirmative Crosses First Negative
1 minute
Ask questions
2AC -- Second Affirmative Constructive Speech
5 minutes
Introducing new positive aspects/continue to respond to criticisms
1N2A -- First Negative Crosses Second Affirmative
1 minute
Prepare quotes and statistics to back up original arguments
Take one minute break between to discuss questions
2NC -- Second Negative Constructive Speech
5 minutes
Prepare more question/look closely for
2A2N -- Second Affirmative Crosses Second Negative
1 minute
Ask questions
1NR -- First Negative Rebuttal Speech
2 minutes
prepare defense
1AR -- First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech
2 minutes
Defend position/twist information to serve your purposes
2NR -- Second Negative Rebuttal Speech
2 minutes
Listen to key point of the opposition/they will sum up their argument
2AR -- Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech
2 minutes
Sum up arguement/No new quotes
*Use questions as opportunity to humiliate the opposition, dont have to wait for answers. Use
rebuttal to defend your position, strike criticisms of opposition, and criticize opponents key points.
*During cross examination, dont be afraid to admit you dont know

Cons

Pros
Fails to recognize live targets
Could be used by the government,
marketers, or any random person to
collect identities and associated
personal information

Simple and efficient way to authorize

access to certain locations
Prevents voting fraud
Identifies airline passengers who have
criminal records or are on police lists

Misidentifications could lead to false

accusations
Personal data could be misused
Many Americans don't even realize that
they're already in a facial recognition
database
Violation of 4th Amendment, can be
considered an unreasonable search and
seizure
Policies and laws are not advancing as
fast as the technology
Costly for government to install
cameras in multiple public places

Law agencies are able to cross reference

public photographs with criminal
databases
Facial recognition technology has the
potential to improve services for
consumers, support innovation by
businesses, and affect identification and
authentication online and offline
So much personal information is exposed
already, facial recognition technology
doesnt expose anything that hasnt been
exposed already

Quotes and Statistics:

Opposing Argument: Violates Privacy through spying on people in public places/not to the
consent of people
Our opponents have said that that it is a violation of privacy for law enforcement agencies and other
agencies to use cameras to scan people faces in public without them knowing. In fact, there is no
federal law outlawing that type of surveillance. Sarah Hilborn, a writer for the videouniversity
website stated, There are no Federal laws that prohibit hidden video surveillance also known as
Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) in public or in the workplace. There is no illegal violation of privacy
through the use of face recognition technology. In fact, some people dop support the use of the
technology to help ensure their security. In a study done by the Timaru Herald, a local news paper
from New Zealand, A survey of 543 adults for the Unisys Security Index found 96 per cent support
for the use of facial recognition to identify (people) on police watch- lists. The use of the technology
is legal and supported by the people when it is used to help ensure their safety.

Opposing Argument: Violates Privacy through use of internet photos

Facebook Inc. has agreed to delete all the facial recognition data it has collected from
European users and switch off the feature in Europe by Oct. 15 (Los Angeles Times,
Written by Jessica Guynn)
Mark Zuckerberg said that the age of privacy is over. (Huffington Post Article written
Kanalley)
Opposing Argument: Not useful and could be harmful to social networking, Invasion of
privacy
Our opponents have stated that the use of facial recognition technology is mostly harmful to social
networking and internet systems and does more harm than good. In fact, social networking systems
have installed such programs to assist their users, not to make it harder for them. Ellen Stuart, an avid
facebook user, posted on her blog, It makes it easier to tag friends. It can be quicker, and if youre
uploading dozens and dozens of pictures from a trip or wedding, its pretty convenient. If users are

concerned about their privacy with the recongition programs, they can simply switch it off. When the
technology came out in Facebook, Justin Mitchell, and executive in the company posted that the
function of being suggested as a tag on your friends accounts are not necessary. Once you change
this in your settings, Your name will no longer be suggested in (your friends) photo tags.
Companies give two main reasons for using facial recognition technology: it helps with
security, and it makes photo editing and sharing easier. (Sarah Downey, Blog titled The
Online Privacy Blog)(Sarah A. Downey is an attorney, privacy advocate, and writer, and
Director of Marketing and Content at Ovuline)

Opposing Argument: Inefficient and not accurate

Our opponents have argued that facial recognition technology is inefficient and often is not accurate.
The technology is not perfect, but it is improving rapidly. The Guardian, a British newspaper, when
reporting on the success of Facebooks technology compared to the facial recognition skills of an
average human being explained, A human being will get the answer correct 97.53% of the time;
Facebook's new technology scores an impressive 97.25%. Sarah Downey of the Online Privacy
Blog reported, The accuracy rate is 99.31% on still frontal face images. Changes in lighting, face
positioning, makeup, hairstyle, facial hair, glasses, and other accessories decreases the accuracy
rate. This is not to say that the technology wont continue to improve. In an article featured on the
Commonwealth Institute, it was stated that, The National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) released a report showing that facial recognition technology has improved dramatically since
2000. The study, which compared the facial recognition systems of 10 private companies, is likely to
speed the adoption of this technology by law enforcement and other government agencies. The
technology is already showing positive results and will continue to improve.
Often, facial recognition is most successful when the distinct abilities of both people and
computers are combined to positively identify a suspect.(Bob Eckel, CEO of
MorphoTrust)(MorphoTrust is a company working with the government and other
organization to improve American security)
If they say that the facebook system and other systems are better than the FBIs: Facebook can
skirt around that problem because it already knows who your friends are and who's likely to show up
in your pictures. It also has many more pictures to work with, hosting 250 billion photos to the FBI's
50 million. That gives Facebooks engineers more chances to find a good picture, and more data to
generalize from.
Opposing Argument: Law enforcement agencies could abuse it
FBI director James Comey said that personal information will not be accessed unless there
they have a criminal record: its use is only to find bad guys by matching pictures to
mugshots (Interview with Dustin Voltz, writer for the National Journal.)
The (FBI) agency is open to making changes to the program (said Jerome Pender, deputy
assistant director of the information services branch of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information
Services Division)
The video camera captures images of individuals' faces, which are automatically compared
against a database of suspected terrorists. Relevant authorities are alerted if a match is found.
Such a system does not permanently record the faces of those it scans, so the technology
cannot be used to track the movement of ordinary citizens.(Joseph Atick has worked as one
of the main inventors for the technology for 14 years as part of company called Visionics)

I want to emphasize if there is no match, then there is no memorythe image is dropped.

This is not a recording system. It does not record any video, nor will you see any video from
the other side. All that is shipped by the network is the 84 bytes of data. The system does not
record, store, or alter the watch-list database in any way. The watch-list database cannot be
hacked into, and because it only accepts faceprint queries; it doesn't take any delete or add or
change. Joseph Atick

Rebuttal Law enforcement agencies could abuse it

To reiterate, law agencies would have little to no ability to abuse information they receive through
data captured by facial recognition. Human prejudices and/or biases do not come into play when it
comes to this information. Facial recognition technology does not alert law agencies of personal
information unless an legitimate threat to public safety has been detected. In other words, only the
personal information of citizens who have been identified as having a previously existing criminal
record will be accessed by any law agency using facial recognition technology. It cannot be
emphasized enough that this is not a recording system. Personal information, or any videos or images
captured on by a facial recognition program, will be stored. Law agencies are not able to abuse this
system because until a potential threat is detected, the system is totally machine operated. In other
words, this system is perfect.

Opposing Argument: Not useful for law enforcement, doesnt work for them
Facial Recognition is very efficient and time after time it has been proven that this technology works.
Law agencies have already benefited greatly from the technology and it hasnt even become
mainstream yet. This technology can benefit society in so many ways in addition to its positive
implications with regard to. It can improve business models such as the Face book tagging systems.
It can prevent voting fraud and identity theft. It is an incredible breakthrough in modern technology,
and limiting facial recognition technology will limit the possibilities of this great nation. Thank you.
Opposing Argument: Not useful for law enforcement, doesnt work for them
Facial recognition can provide law enforcement agencies with a valuable tool for multiple
public safety applications (Eric Hess s, Forensicmagazine)
The reality is that biometrics can strengthen privacy and security, as it is the only sure way
to establish identity, making it extremely difficult for a criminal to fraudulently assume and
abuse someone else's identity. (Bob Eckel, CEO of MorphoTrust)
"I've used it over 100 times now," said Eastty, who got his mobile unit in May 2008. "I've
actually never had anyone give me grief over it." (Tampa Bay Times article, Deputy Mark
Eastty of the Pinellas Sheriff department)
To do list:
Prepare first speech
Make prompts for each part of debate
Gather statistics and quotes for individual points of view
Find opposing points and write down possible refutes
Possible arguments:

the technology can assist with crime fighting, and will be helpful to society
The technology is already out, so if you ban it it will only reappear under the radar in more
harmful ways

First Affirmative
Constructive
Speech:
Introduction

It is efficient and
works

Can be used for

law enforcement

Examples of it
already being
used

Be it resolved that the use of facial recognition technology should be banned by

the end of the year 2017. We are refuting this argument for the following
reasons; facial recognition technology has the potential to expand law agencies,
improve services for consumers, and support innovation by businesses.
Joseph Atick, one of the original inventors and developers of the the technology
described how the technology works. It analyzes the face and creates a
mathematical code, a digital code called a faceprint, which is essentially a
description of the relationships between the landmarks of your face. (This
mathematical equation) only takes about 84 bytes of data, less than two
sentences in an e-mail you send to a friend. The technology is very efficient,
and is still developing so that it will become more accurate. Data collected from
fingerprints or other DNA samples does not provide the same benefits that facial
recognition technology does, as facial recognition technology is able to identify
patterns in movement and facial expressions; furthermore, it is far easier for
public cameras to obtain images of peoples faces then it is to obtain someones
fingerprints, making facial recognition a more convenient and efficient biometric
tool for law agencies.
Facial recognition technology is extremely beneficial to law agencies such as the
FBI. In his article for Forensics magazine, Eric Hess wrote that Facial
recognition can provide law enforcement agencies with a valuable tool for
multiple public safety applications. Public cameras in institutions that require
high security, such as airports, are able to easily identify people with criminal
records by matching images of their faces to mugshots.
The technology has already been used successfully in law enforcement. In
February of 2013, the New Jersey office of the Attorney General reported that
authorities arrested 38 people in Operation Facial Scrub, including five sex
offenders and 29 people who, despite having suspended licenses, obtained
fraudulent licenses. Of these, some had multiple DUI offenses, and even used
their false identities to obtain commercial driver licenses to drive trucks or
buses. The Department of law and Public Safety reported it as being, one of its
most promising fraud prevention initiatives. In March of 2013, the New York
Executive Chamber released a statement saying, it had investigated 13,000
possible cases of identity fraud in the three years since facial recognition
technology was implemented by the Department of Motor Vehicles, resulting in
more than 2,500 arrests.

Very specific
example

Other positive
uses

The Pennsylvania Justice Network described a case in 2012 in which a long

distance surveillance camera captured a picture of a man suspected to be part of
an organized crime outfit. After scanning the suspects face and searching the
database of people with police records, the facial recognition program found 5
possible matches to the criminal. With further surveillance, the police found a
tattoo on the arm of the suspect, matching him to one of the criminals in list of
facial recognition results.
Facial recognition programs have been put to use in many other ways. Facebook
has developed programs to assist users in tagging their friends in their photos.
Justin Mitchell, one of the key developers of Facebook posted that, Many of
(our users) have said tagging photos can be a chore. To make it easier, first we
added group tagging, so you could type one name and apply it to multiple photos
of the same person. Now we're announcing tag suggestions, which will make
tagging multiple photos even more convenient. These suggestions he is
referring too are calculated using the program. In her blog, Sarah Downey wrote
that, Even supermarket security uses facial recognition: one grocery chain in
the UK uses facial recognition to stop underage customers from buying alcohol.

Second Affirmative
Constructive Outline:
Counter - argument
for if they say that the
government could abuse
the technology

Counter argument for if

they say that organization
can't take picture of people
in public places
Counter argument for if
they say that picture posted
to Facebook and other

Facial recognition technology is far more beneficial that it is harmful.

You keep insisting that facial technology is an invasion of privacy,
but it quite simply is not. Joseph Attik, wrote in his article for
Homeland Security that Such a system does not permanently record
the faces of those it scans, so the technology cannot be used to track
the movement of ordinary citizens. That is, of course, unless they are
believed to pose legitimate threat to public security. Yes, law agencies
have access to personal information, but they only take advantage of
that access if they have reason to believe someone poses a threat. As
Rick Nelson, senior fellow of the Center for Strategic and International
Studies said in an NPR interview, These are people that come into
contact with law enforcement, like a mugshot, or they are people that
apply for civil government jobs, such as with the FBI or the CIA, or
military personnel who willingly give their information up. So this isn't
the random gathering of information.
Furthermore, even if your personal information is being accessed, it is
being accessed in public spaces, which is completely legal. Mellissa
Ngo is the director of the Identification and Surveillance Project at the
Electronic Privacy Information Center. In an interview with GCN, Ngo
said that You do not have a right to privacy in public spaces. The

websites cant be used

FBI and the CIA have the right to use facial recognition in public
areas.
In addition, your complaints about facial recognition technology
collecting personal information are redundant, as you have already
given up personal information to corporations like Apple, Facebook
and Google. In a recent Huffington Post article Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg said that the age of privacy is over. Regardless of
whether or not facial recognition technology becomes common
practice in American society, you have already surrendered your
privacy. At least facial technology will be used for the betterment of
American society.

Filler/Extra evidence for arguements:

Some people, such as my esteemed colleagues, would have you believe that the use of
facial recognition technology is an invasion of privacy. But in an interview with Dustin Voltz
of the Huffington Post, FBI director James Comey was quoted as saying that personal
information will not be accessed unless they have a criminal record: its (facial recognition
technology) use is only to find bad guys by matching pictures to mugshots. Joseph Atick,
speaking of the technology he developed, said, If there is no match, then there is no
memorythe image is dropped. This is not a recording system. The system does not record,
store, or alter the watch-list database in any way. The watch-list database cannot be hacked
into, and because it only accepts faceprint queries; it doesn't take any delete or add or
change. The information gathered by law enforcement agencies does not have the potential
to track the individual movements of its citizens.

Specific rebuttals to specific cases

Opposing viewpoints and references

Refutes

But in the 1967 case Katz v. United States, the

Supreme Court considered the issue raised by
police officers who, without trespassing on private
property, used parabolic microphones or wiretaps
to listen in on conversations. Justice Hugo Black

Mellissa Ngo is the director of the Identification

and Surveillance Project at the Electronic
Privacy Information Center. In an interview
with GCN, Ngo said that You do not have a

said this kind of surveillance was permissible

because the new technology was simply an
updated version of eavesdropping. The majority
of the Court, however, ruled that wiretaps and
other electronic surveillance should be permitted
only if the police obtained a search warrant
Like the Fourth Amendment itself, Katz relies on
a subjective judgment of reasonableness. Thus,
there is no guarantee that Katz would stand as a
barrier to omnipresent British-style face scanning;
nor would Katz necessarily forbid placing
information about every person's movements in a
permanent government database.
In the summer of 2001, the Tampa Police
Department installed several dozen cameras,
assigned staff to monitor them, and installed a
face recognition application called Face-IT
manufactured by the Visionics Corporation of
New Jersey.
The logs revealed:
The system has never correctly identified
a single face in its database of suspects, let
alone resulted in any arrests.

One potential problem with such a powerful

surveillance system is that experience tells us it
will inevitably be abused. Video camera systems
are operated by humans, who after all bring to the
job all their existing prejudices and biases.

Possible Questions:

right to privacy in public spaces.

Joseph Atick, speaking of the technology he

developed, said, If there is no match, then
there is no memorythe image is dropped. This
is not a recording system. The system does not
record, store, or alter the watch-list database in
any way. The watch-list database cannot be
hacked into, and because it only accepts
faceprint queries; it doesn't take any delete or
add or change.

In Phinellas County and other parts of Florida,

there are many successful uses of the
technology
On May 7, the North Miami Police Department
called the Sheriff's Office seeking help
identifying a bank robber whose face had been
captured in a high-quality surveillance photo.
The facial recognition system provided the
name and photo of Meulener, who witnesses
later picked out of a photo lineup. Later that
day, police arrested Meulener, who they said
confessed. - Tampa Bay Time Article
A process outlined by the Evidence Technology
Magazine describes how cameras take picture of
people in public places, and then uses a facial
recognition program to compare them to
pictures of people with existing records. The
results are deflected to a police station where
police look at them and make the final call. The
facial recognition programs themselves are not
operated by humans, therefore no bias or
prejudices are shown through scanning of
different people.

What is your source for ?

When was that source created?
Do you really think that your source/point is relevant to the debate? (It is either outdated or
off topic)
You say that the government can abuse information they receive through facial recognition.
Do you have any specific examples?
In your speech you mentioned some of the inefficiencies of current facial recognition
technology. Are you saying that the technology couldnt improve if we were to continue to
develop it?

Works Cited
Works Cited
(Atick, Joseph. "Facial Recognition Technology Can Enhance Homeland Security." Homeland
Security. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Rpt. from "Surveillance
Technology: Tracking Terrorists and Protecting Public Places." Spectrum Online. 2001. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
"Attorney General and MVC Chief Showcase High-Tech Program Operation Facial Scrub to
Detect False Drivers Licenses." Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney
General. The State of New Jersey, 2011. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases13/pr20130212a.html>.
Brandom, Russel. "Why Facebook is beating the FBI at facial recognition." The Verge. N.p., 7 July
2014. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/7/5878069/why-facebook-is-beating-thefbi-at-facial-recognition>.
Dormhel, Luke. "Facial recognition: is the technology taking away your identity?" The Guardian.
WH Allen, 3 May 2014. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/04/facial-recognition-technology-identity-tescoethical-issues>.
Downey, Sarah. "The top 6 FAQs about facial recognition." The Online Privacy Blog. N.p., 8 Dec.
2011. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.abine.com/blog/2011/facial-recognition-faqs/>.
"Facial recognition technology gets limited nod." Timaru Herald, The 30 May 2012: 07. Points of
View Reuference Center. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Gross, Grant. "Regulation of Facial Recognition Technology May Be Needed."
www.computerworld.com. N.p., 18 July 2012. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.computerworld.com/article/2506105/technology-law-regulation/
regulation-of-facial-recognition-may-be-needed--us-senator-says.html>.
Guynn, Jessica. "Facebook agrees to delete European users' facial recognition
data." articles.latimes.com. The Los Angeles Times, 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 5
Oct. 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/21/business/
la-fi-tn-facebook-facial-recognition-europe20120921>.

Hess, Eric. "Facial Recognition: A Valuable Tool For Law Enforcement."

www.forensicmag.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2010/10/
facial-recognition-valuable-tool-law-enforcement>.
"How Facial Recognition Technology Helps." Evidence Technology Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 4
Oct. 2014.
<http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1309>.
Kanalley, Craig, ed. "Facebook Privacy Concerns: An Open Letter To Mark
Zuckerberg." www.huffingtonpost.com. The Huffington Post, 18 Mar. 2010.
Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-kanalley/
facebook-privacy-concerns_b_418031.html>.
Kopel, David, and Michael Krause. "Facial Recognition Technology Threatens Individual Privacy."
Homeland Security. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Rpt. from
"Face the Facts: Facial Recognition Technology's Troubled Pastand Troubling Future." Reason 34
(Oct. 2002): 26. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.Gross, Grant. "Regulation of
Facial Recognition Technology May Be Needed."
www.computerworld.com. N.p., 18 July 2012. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.computerworld.com/article/2506105/technology-law-regulation/
regulation-of-facial-recognition-may-be-needed--us-senator-says.html>.
Leggiere, Philip. "Pros and Cons of Biometric Technologies." Commonweal Institute. N.p., 25 Mar.
2003. Web. 2 Oct. 2014. <http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/archive/pros-and-cons-of-biometrictechnologies>.
Mitchell, Justin. "Making Photo tagging easier." 30 June 2011. Facebook update.
<https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/making-photo-tagging-easier/467145887130>.
Schmidt, Miachael, Miachael German, and Rick Nelson. "The Pros And Cons Of Gathering
Biometric Data." Interview by Neal Conan. Talk of the Nation. National Public Radio, 18 Sept. 2012.
Web. 2 Oct. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/2012/09/18/161355293/the-pros-and-cons-of-gatheringbiometric-data>.
Stanely, Kameel. "Facial recognition technology proving effective for Pinellas deputies." Tampa Bay
Times. N.p., 23 July 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/facial-recognition-technology-provingeffective-for-pinellas-deputies/1019492>.
Stanley, Jay, and Barry Steinhardt. "Face-Recognition Technology Threatens Individual Privacy."
Civil Liberties. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Current Controversies. Rpt.
from "Drawing a Blank: The Failure of Facial Recognition Technology in Tampa, Florida."
www.aclu.org. 2002. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.
Stuart, Ellen. "Facebooks New Facial Recognition Photo Tagging." The Alley Blog. Vital, n.d. Web.
5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.vtldesign.com/inbound-marketing/social-media/nh-facebookmarketing/how-to-disable-facebook-facial-recognition-photo-tagging-nhmarketing/>.

Voltz, Dustin. "Privacy Groups Sound the Alarm Over FBIs Facial-Recognition
Technology." www.nationaljournal.com. The National Journal, 24 June 2014.
Web. 5 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/
privacy-groups-sound-the-alarm-over-fbi-s-facial-recognition-technology-20140624>.