Even though it's new, or perhaps because it's new, facial recognition technology evokes strong emotions.

This technology is a tool, and like any tool, it is in the abstract value neutral.

It can be used for good, it can be used for bad.

Still, people's strong emotional reactions seem justified.

Facial recognition is a powerful tool.

It ramps up the good and it ramps up the bad. Public defenders can use facial recognition to exonerate defendants accused of homicide. But Iran's morality police can use it to force

women to wear a hijab in public.

China is using facial recognition to oppress its Uyghur minority

and to impose a social credit system on everyone else.

The stakes are high.

Whatever we do with facial recognition technology,

whatever rules we set around its use,

we should proceed thoughtfully and cautiously keeping a close eye on the costs and benefits of

deploying it. One person who is proceeding thoughtfully and cautiously while keeping a close eye on costs and benefits,

is Professor Jane Banbauer. Jane is the Dorothy H. and Lewis Rosentiel Distinguished Professor

of Law at the University of Arizona College of Law. She wrote an essay for the Hoover Institution called Facial Recognition

as a less bad option, which will be discussing today on this, the Tech Policy Podcast,

with me, your host, Corvin Barthold. Professor, welcome. It's great to have you. Thanks so much. I'm excited.

So let's dive right in. What is facial recognition technology? Very basic. What's its current

state of development, more or less? And what spurred you to write about it?

Okay, yeah. So facial recognition technology is basically using a computer program to compare two face images and decide whether it's the same person or not.

So what happens, usually the companies are developing this, like Clearview, AI, for example,

...