How Does Ring’s ‘Familiar Faces’ Work?

“Familiar Faces” aims to provide Ring users with “personalized context” by identifying people detected by their cameras. Users will be able to tag individuals, allowing the system to automatically recognize them in the future. This process necessitates the creation of a “faceprint” – a unique numerical representation of each face – extracted from images captured by the cameras. Even individuals not specifically tagged by a user may have their biometric data retained by Amazon for up to six months, according to the company. While Amazon asserts it currently doesn’t use this data for “model training or algorithmic purposes,” the potential for future repurposing remains a significant concern.

The technology isn’t limited to identifying known contacts. It could potentially recognize political canvassers, delivery personnel, postal workers, children, or even passersby on public sidewalks. This indiscriminate data collection is at the heart of the privacy debate. Amazon has stated the feature will initially be unavailable in Illinois, Texas, and Portland, Oregon – jurisdictions with robust biometric privacy laws – but has not committed to maintaining this restriction indefinitely.

The Legal Landscape: Biometric Data and Your Rights

Many states are enacting stricter regulations regarding biometric data collection, requiring explicit consent before companies can utilize facial recognition technology. The legal precedent is growing. In Texas, Google recently settled a lawsuit for $1.375 billion over its Nest cameras’ indiscriminate capture of facial geometry, even from non-users (Texas Attorney General’s Office). Similarly, Facebook (now Meta) faced significant legal challenges and a $650 million settlement in Illinois for its automatic face recognition features, ultimately leading to the shutdown of the tool (Meta Newsroom). Meta later paid an additional $1.4 billion to settle a similar suit in Texas.

Beyond Illinois and Texas, at least 16 states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that often require opt-in consent for the collection of sensitive data, including biometrics. Washington state, for example, passed a biometric privacy law in 2017 and strengthened it further in 2023, granting individuals the right to sue companies for violations (EFF DeepLinks). Colorado and Maryland have also implemented laws offering increased biometric data protection.

However, many of these laws contain loopholes and rely on state regulators for enforcement, a weakness that Amazon lobbyists have actively exploited (Reuters). Despite these challenges, Ring’s new feature presents a clear opportunity for regulators to investigate and uphold privacy protections.

The Broader Implications: Surveillance and Data Security

The risks extend beyond legal compliance. Your biometric data is uniquely sensitive – unlike a password, your face cannot be changed. Data breaches, as highlighted by the EFF (EFF Breachies), are a constant threat, and compromised biometric data could have lifelong consequences. Furthermore, the potential for repurposing this technology for mass surveillance is significant. Ring’s close partnerships with law enforcement agencies amplify this concern, as demonstrated by the recent private-public partnership in New Orleans (ACLU).

Amazon’s “Search Party” feature, which uses neighbor’s cameras to locate lost pets, further illustrates this potential for mission creep. While seemingly benign, this technology could easily be adapted for tracking individuals. Although Amazon claims it cannot currently fulfill law enforcement requests for a list of cameras identifying a specific person, it does comply with other law enforcement demands (Ring Support).

Moreover, facial recognition technology has been shown to exhibit biases, with higher error rates for individuals with darker skin tones (MIT News). The technology can also misinterpret emotions, age, and gender, leading to inaccurate and potentially discriminatory outcomes.

Did You Know? Facial recognition isn’t simply about identifying *who* you are; it’s about creating a permanent, unchangeable digital record of your face.

Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has already called on Amazon to abandon its plans, requesting detailed information about the feature’s privacy safeguards (Senator Markey’s Website). Ring’s response to questions posed by the EFF can be found here (EFF Document).

What level of surveillance are we willing to accept in the name of convenience? And how can we ensure that this technology is used responsibly and ethically, protecting the privacy rights of all individuals?

Frequently Asked Questions About Ring’s ‘Familiar Faces’

• What is Ring’s “Familiar Faces” feature?

  Ring’s “Familiar Faces” is a facial recognition tool that identifies people approaching Ring cameras, allowing users to tag and recognize individuals. It requires the creation of a “faceprint” for each person detected.

• Is Ring’s facial recognition feature available everywhere?

  No, the “Familiar Faces” feature is currently unavailable in Illinois, Texas, and Portland, Oregon, due to their stricter biometric privacy laws. Amazon has not guaranteed it will remain unavailable in other locations.

• What are the privacy risks associated with Ring’s ‘Familiar Faces’?

  The primary privacy risks include mass surveillance, data breaches, potential for misuse by law enforcement, and the inherent sensitivity of biometric data, which cannot be reset like a password.

• Does Amazon obtain consent before collecting biometric data?

  Amazon states it will provide in-app messages to customers reminding them to comply with applicable laws, but the responsibility for obtaining consent from individuals not directly using Ring devices remains unclear and legally contentious.

• What happens to the biometric data collected by Ring?

  Amazon processes and stores biometric data on its servers, claiming to use comprehensive security measures. However, data may be retained for up to six months even for individuals not tagged by a user.

• Are there any biases associated with facial recognition technology?

  Yes, studies have shown that facial recognition technology can have higher error rates for certain demographic groups, particularly women with darker skin tones.