Description
writing a book review of Mark Andrejevic and Neil Selwyn (2022) Facial Recognition.
6 Pages double spaced 14 Font [You do not need a title/cover page] I will provide details on how to reference the book review in Class. Book Review Session.
This assignment is a book review. It is an assignment that asks you to critically analyze Mark Andrejevic
& Neil Selwyn’s Facial Recognition and tells the reader what the point it is trying to make; and, how
convincingly it makes this point. Writing a critique achieves three purposes. First, it provides you with
an understanding of the information contained in a book; and a familiarity with other information written
on the same topic. Second, it provides an opportunity to apply and develop your critical thinking skills as
you attempt to evaluate critically a political scientist’s (or other thinker’s) work. Third, it helps you to
improve your own writing skills as you attempt to describe the book’s strengths and weaknesses within a
specific page length so that your reader can clearly understand them.
This book review assignment has four areas: Thesis Statement; Methods; Evidence; and,
Recommendations. Before you start your critical review, you should provide the reader with a short
summary of what the book is about. This should be no longer than ½ page. Consider this as your
introduction to the review. Next, you should turn your attention to the four requirements of the critical
review. The following are guides to help you write your paper.
Thesis Statement: Your first task is to find and clearly state the thesis in the book. The thesis is the main
point the book is trying to make. Quote Andrejevic & Selwyn’s Thesis Statement in the body of your
review and tell me which page or pages you believe it is found on. Many authors, however, do not present
their thesis clearly. Do you have to hunt for the thesis of the book? If you believe you found it, quote it
in our review; and, tell me which page(s) you believe you found it on. Comment about the clarity of
the author’s thesis presentation. If you do not believe they had a thesis statement than indicate this in
your answer to this section of the book review.
Methods: What methods did the authors use to investigate her topic? In other words, how did the authors
go about supporting their thesis? In your critique, carefully answer the following two questions. First,
were appropriate methods used? In other words, did the authors approach to supporting the thesis make
sense? Second, did the authors employ the selected methods correctly? Did you discover any errors in
the way the authors conducted their research?
Evidence for thesis support: In your critique, answer the following questions: What evidence did the
authors present in support of their thesis? What are the strengths of the evidence presented by the authors?
What are the weaknesses of the evidence presented? On balance, how well did the authors support their
thesis?
Recommendation: In this section, summarize your evaluation of the book. Tell the readers several things.
Who would benefit from reading it? What will the benefit be? Be specific. Don’t for example say
something generic like “everybody should read this book” or “students taking political science courses
should read it”. How important and extensive is that benefit? Finally, clearly state your evaluation of the
book – whether you liked or disliked it and why?
Think of your paper as a construction requiring planning (an outline) and careful thinking of concepts,
issues, problems etc. It is helpful to state the objectives and the plan for the paper in the opening paragraph
(introduction). The introduction should conclude with a concise, coherent summary of the argument to
be developed. Despite having major components in the paper, you do not need subheadings as they tend
simply to be space filler and I will call you out on it and deduct marks. Instead, you should use
paragraphs as building blocks. To effectively use the book in your paper, try to identify the main
argument(s) of the author and select examples carefully to bolster your argument. Do not use too many
long, direct quotations. You can summarize the argument(s) in your own words, but make sure to cite the
source of the information as an indirect quote.
Your paper will be evaluated on the following criteria:
• A clear, coherent, and systematic presentation.
• Correct spelling and a competent writing style which allows you to express your views and ideas
clearly.
• Proper citation [refer to the documentation posted to D2L on how to reference this assignment.]
• Adequately and fully addressing all aspects of the assignment
• Any review, which is simply a chapter-by-chapter summary, will automatically receive at
best a grade of 50%; and the grade may be lowered based upon the other grading criteria.
• Do not use any other sources other than the book under review. If outside sources are used,
I will deduct a substantial grade
Unformatted Attachment Preview
POL 507 Power and Change in Technological Society
Class 6: Book Review
©Robert Marshall
Politics/Public Administration
Toronto Metropolitan University
2
• This is a critical book review which means it is not a simple chapter summary of the chosen book. I do
not want to read “In chapter one Andrejevic & Selwyn says….in chapter two they say…. etc.” Any
review that does this will, at best, get an automatic grade of 60%.
• And the grade could very well go lower depending on the quality of the work pushing it into the D or F
range.
• Don’t forget, as the class has been informed, as an upper-level Liberal Arts elective I expect everybody
to have the reading, writing and critical analysis skills of senior university students. And I will grade to
that expectation.
3
• Something to keep in mind that can have a negative impact on the grade: do not use any other
sources except the Andrejeciv/Selwyn book.
• This is not a research paper but a critical review.
• If other sources are used, I will deduct grades.
4
Introduction to the Review:
• You should start your review on page one with a ½ page summary of the overall book in the first
opening paragraph. Introduce the author’s names and the book title in your first sentence before you
proceed to the short summary.
• If someone unfamiliar with the book wanted to pick it up and read it, you need to tell them what it is
about. This helps to build their expectations for it. Keep it to the ½ page summary.
• Avoid a Chapter x Chapter summarization. That’s not review but summary and grades will be deducted
if this occurs.
5
Thesis Statement:
• The second paragraph on page one is where you get into the actual book review by addressing the
Thesis Statement component of the assignment. This should only take up approximately a ½ page.
While this is the shortest part of the review it is the most important part of it. The remaining three
sections of the review are built on the thesis statement.
• A Thesis Statement is the main point an author is trying to convey to a reader. By the time
you finish reading a book you should be able to say to yourself whether you agree, or disagree,
with an author’s argument. But to be able to do this you have to know what that argument is.
6
Thesis Statement Continued:
• So…where you able to locate the author’s Thesis Statement? If you believe you have found it, I
want you to quote/cite it directly in your review and tell me the page (or pages) you believe you
found it on. [Discussion of referencing system below]
• Conversely, if you do not feel that the author’s had a clear Thesis Statement, or you were unable to
locate it, then say that in this section.
7
Methods:
• Methods is a short form for Methodology. What types of research tools – or methods – do the
authors use to gather the evidence to support their Thesis Statement? Methods tell a reader a lot
about whether to trust an author.
• I would recommend 2 pages to discuss the author’s Methods.
• Give concrete examples of their research tools.
• And don’t forget to properly reference them.
8
Evidence:
• Evidence is related to methods. You should devote 2 pages of your review to this section.
• Evidence is the facts, information etc. that an author has gathered to support their Thesis
Statement. Give some concrete examples of the kinds of evidence used in the book; and again,
don’t forget to reference them.
• This section asks you not just to describe the evidence an author uses but also to inform their
reader [i.e., me] whether they were provided with enough evidence to convince you of the Thesis
Statement?
9
Recommendations:
• So, if you are keeping a tally of the page length you have now completed 5 of the 6 full pages
assigned. The last page of the assignment is for your Recommendations.
• This is where you tell the reader [again me] your overall feelings about the book. But justify your
opinion. Tell me: did you love it, why or why not? Or did you abhor it, why or why not? Be
specific and be honest with your opinion.
• As rude as this sounds, I don’t care what your opinion of the book is. This is your book review and
your opinion. But you must justify it.
10
Recommendations Continued:
• The other thing this final section is requiring you to do is tell me who do you think would benefit
from reading this book? Whether you personally loved or hated it, an author is always trying to
reach a specific audience whom they believe will benefit from reading their book.
• Be specific. Don’t be general or generic. I don’t want to read statements such as “Everybody
should read it” or “Anybody taking a political science course should read it”.
• You can use first person in this section of the review.
11
Book Review Referencing:
• To keep the referencing process simple use the following system in your book review. As I do not
want you to use other sources, your only source is the book itself under review.
• Do the referencing in the body of the paper itself. Do not use footnotes or endnotes.
12
Book Review Referencing: Direct Quote
• When you take an author’s words and quote them in your review exactly as written, this is called a direct quote. It
must be put into quotation marks and page reference(s) must be provided:
1. A quote from a single page looks like this: (p. _).
2. A quote that is taken from two pages looks like this: (pp. _-_). So, for example, if a direct quote starts at the bottom
of one page and continues onto the top of the next page (for example pp.4-5) this is the style to use. Try not to use
too many lengthy direct quotes. They should be used to support your argument, not make them for you.
3. If a direct quote is more than three lines in length, put it into Block Quote Formation: indented and single-spaced
– and some formatting styles recommend using a smaller font. Block quotes do not need to be put into quotation
marks as it is implied by the formatting itself.
13
Book Review Referencing: Block Quote
14
Book Review Referencing: Indirect Quote
• If you take the authors words but put them into your own words in the review, this is called an
indirect quote. You must still provide a page reference using the same system as above [p. or pp.].
The only difference is that indirect quotes are not put into quotation marks. This lets the
reader/grader/me know that this is not your own idea but has been derived from the original source
material (i.e., the Andrejevic/Selwyn book) but put into your own words.
15
Next Class:
Politics & The Internet
•
S Salem “Creating Spaces for Dissent. The Role of Social Media in the 2011 Egyptian
Revolution.” In D. Trottier ed., Social Media, Politics and the State NY: Routledge, 2015, pp.
171-188.
•
W. Wong & P. Brown “E-Bandits in Global Activism: Wikileaks, Anonymous, and the Politics of
No One.” Perspectives on Politics Vol. 11, No 4 (December 2013): 1015-1033.
16
POL 507 – Winter 2024
Power & Change in Technological Society
Class 6 Book Review
©Robert Marshall
Dept of Politics & Public Administration
Toronto Metropolitan University
1
The copyright to this original work is held by Robert Marshall and students registered in
POL 507 can use this material for the purposes of this course but no other use is permitted,
and there can be no sale or transfer or use of the work for any other purpose without
explicit permission of Robert Marshall.
Introduction
At this point in the term, you should have completed or being
nearing completion reading the Andrejevic/Selwyn book Facial
Recognition for your graded book review assignment. Details on the due
date etc. are found in the course syllabus and on D2L. I want to take this
opportunity to go over the assignment with the class to make sure you
understand what is being asked of you.
This is a critical book review which means it is not a simple chapter
summary of the chosen book. I do not want to read “In chapter one
Andrejevic/Selwyn says….in chapter two they say…. etc.” Any review
that does this will, at best, get an automatic grade of 60%. And the grade
could very well go lower depending on the quality of the work potentially
pushing the grade down into the D or F range. Don’t forget, as I informed
the class, as an upper-level Liberal Arts elective I expect everybody to
have the reading, writing and critical analysis skills of senior university
students. And I will grade to that expectation no matter what year you are
currently registered in.
2
Something also to keep in mind that can have a negative impact on
the grade: do not use any other sources except the Andrejevic/Selwyn
book. This is not a research paper but a critical review. If other sources
are used, I will deduct grades.
You don’t need a title page. Save some formatting time. And you do
not need to have headers or footers with your name or student number in
them. I mark blind [or as much as possible given the reviews are being
uploaded to D2L which does give instructors the option of blind marking]
and having this info on each page makes that very challenging. Do not
use subsection headings [Thesis, Methods, Evidence, Recommendations].
They tend to be nothing more that space filler and disrupts the “flow” and
“continuity” of your review. They are included in the assignment
instructions so that everybody is aware of the 4 components of a book
review; but, do to use them in your submitted version for the reasons
outlined above.
You should start your review on page one with a ½ page summary
of the overall book in the first opening paragraph. Introduce the authors
names and the book title in your first sentence before you proceed to the
short summary. If someone unfamiliar with the book wanted to pick it up
and read it, you need to tell them what it is about. This helps to build their
3
expectations for it. Keep it to the ½ page summary. But again, avoid
chapter x chapter summarization.
The second paragraph on page one is where you get into the actual
book review by addressing the Thesis Statement component of the
assignment. This should only take up approximately a ½ page. While this
is the shortest part of the review it is the most important part of it. The
remaining three sections of the review are built around the thesis
statement. A Thesis Statement is the main point or argument that an author
or authors is/are trying to convey to their reader. By the time you finish
reading a book you should be able to say to yourself whether you agree,
or disagree, with an author’s thesis statement and hence overall argument.
But to be able to do this you have to know what that argument is.
So…where you able to locate the author’s Thesis Statement? If you
believe you have found it, I want you to quote it directly in your review
and tell me the page (or pages) you believe you found it on. [Discussion
of referencing system below] Conversely, if you do not feel the authors
had a clear Thesis Statement, or you were unable to locate it, then say that
in this section. I’m not asking you to come up with your own Thesis
Statement. It’s the authors thesis statement that this component of the
assignment is focused on.
4
The next two components of the review – Methods and Evidence –
are interrelated; and I would recommend 2 pages for each.
Methods is a shorter version of Methodology. What types of
research tools – or methods – do the authors use to gather the evidence to
support their Thesis Statement? Methods tell a reader a lot about whether
to trust an author or authors. Suppose I set out to write a book about
Brazilian labor relations. But I sat in my university office in downtown
Toronto and just surfed the net for information and web-based materials.
Would that make me an expert on the topic? Probably not. Most readers
would question my ‘expertise’. Readers might ask ‘why didn’t Marshall
go to Brazil and interview labor leaders or business owners or government
officials or knowledgeable academics? Why didn’t he use primary
government or statistical documents?’ Etc. Every author is trying to
convince you that they are the expert on the book’s subject matter, and
you should believe what they are writing. One way they try to do so is
through their research methodology. It can give validity to their overall
thesis. Think about how you have researched written essays for other
courses – perhaps other liberal arts courses. How have you gone about
gathering the information, facts or data to support your argument? That’s
what methods refers to. Not the actual evidence itself; but the different
types of research tools employed to gather the evidence. Give examples
of their research tools; and don’t forget to properly reference them.
5
Evidence is related to methods. You should devote 2 pages of your
review to this section. Give selective but representative examples of their
evidence; and don’t forget to properly reference them. Evidence is the
facts, information and data itself that has been gathered to support their
Thesis Statement. It’s the details and the content of the book. Give some
concrete examples of the kinds of evidence used in the book; and again,
don’t forget to reference them. Was there evidence missing that you
believe could have strengthened the argument? Did the authors make any
obvious errors in their book? You don’t have the time to fact check
everything in the book, so when I say obvious errors, I mean they have to
be something that jumps right off the page, and you know immediately it
is mistakenly wrong. Going back to my Brazilian labor example, if I wrote
that the capital of Brazil was Portlandia most readers would immediately
see that error. If a book is full of errors you start to question the authors;
and, the argument they are trying to convince you of. “Maybe Marshall’s
not the expert on South American labor relations that he thinks he is…?”
So, if you are keeping a tally of the page length you have now
completed 5 of the 6 full pages assigned. The last page of the assignment
is for your Recommendations. This is where you tell the reader your
overall feelings about the book. But justify your opinion. Tell me: did
you love it, why or why not? Or did you abhor it, why or why not? Be
specific and be honest with your opinion. As rude as this sounds, I don’t
6
care what your opinion of the book is. This is your book review and your
opinion. But you must justify it. Don’t worry what mine is and try to shape
your review into something you think I want to read. In this section you
can most definitely use first person. Put your voice into it. The other thing
this final section is requiring you to do is tell me who do you think would
benefit from reading the Andrejevic/Selwyn book? Whether you
personally loved or hated it, authors are trying to reach a specific audience
whom they believe will benefit from reading their book. Be specific.
Don’t be general or generic. I don’t want to read statements such as
“everybody should read it” or “anybody taking a political science course
should read it”.
Review the syllabus for the specifics on font size, margins, spacing
etc. But note the assignment is only 6 pages in length. This may appear to
be a short assignment, but my guess is that for many in the class this may
be the first time you have written a book review for a graded assignment.
Writing a short assignment can be trickier than you might think! It means
you must be exact with your wording; and, you don’t have the space to go
off on tangents. Finally writing to the terms of an assignment contributes
to the grading alongside content. That means meeting due date/time,
assigned length etc. If you find when you have finished your first draft of
the review it is longer than 6 full pages, you will need to edit it to meet
7
the assigned length. If it’s shorter than 6 full pages, you need to revisit it
and expand on the content.
Book Review Referencing:
To keep the referencing process simple use the following system in
your book review. As I do not want you to use other sources, your sole
source is the book under review itself. Do the referencing in the body of
the paper itself. Do not use footnotes or endnotes.
When you take an author’s words and quote them in your review exactly
as written, this is called a direct quote. It must be put into quotation marks
and page reference(s) must be provided:
1. A quote from a single page looks like this: (p. _).
2. A quote that is taken from two pages looks like this: (pp. _-_). So,
for example, if a direct quote starts at the bottom of one page and
continues onto the top of the next page (for example pp.4-5) this is
the style to use. Try not to use too many lengthy direct quotes. They
should be used to support your argument, not make them for you.
3. If a direct quote is more than three lines in length, put it into Block
Quote Formation: indented and single-spaced – and some
formatting styles recommend using a smaller font. Block quotes do
8
not need to be put into quotation marks as it is implied by the
formatting itself.
In the example above the Block Quote is highlighted but only for
demonstrative purposes. This in not done in your review. Note how the
quote in indented and single spaced. And don’t forget to include the
page(s) reference at the end of the quote.
9
If you take the authors words but put them into your own words in the
review, this is called an indirect quote. You must still provide a page
reference using the same system as above [ignoring Block Quotes as it
does not apply in this situation]. The only difference is that indirect quotes
are not put into quotation marks. This lets the reader/grader/me know that
this is not your own idea but has been derived from the original source
material (i.e. the Andrejevic/Selwyn book) but put into your own words.
Unfortunately given the enrolment size of the course and that I am
also teaching 2 other courses this term, I do not have the luxury of reading
drafts of your review. If you have any specific questions however, please
contact me.
Good luck with your reading and writing.
Robert Marshall
[email protected]
10
https://lthj.qut.edu.au/
Volume 5 (1) 2023
LAW, TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANS
https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.2908
Book Review
Mark Andrejevic and Neil Selwyn (2022) Facial
Recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press
Pedro Zucchetti Filho
Australian National University, Australia
ISBN: 150954732
Authored by leading experts in facial recognition in Australia, Facial Recognition presents a comprehensive account of the
diversified facial recognition technology (FRT) applications in multiple scenarios. Andrejevic and Selwyn draw on interesting
contemporary examples, such as FRT usage by employers seeking to analyse a job applicant’s compatibility, retail stores aiming
to detect clients’ satisfaction and preferences, and law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The book is neatly structured, consisting of a preface, the main body (comprising seven chapters) and an epilogue. The authors
helpfully address FRT’s main characteristics in the first two chapters, in addition to clarifying its historical development and
delineating its essential concepts.1 The third chapter focuses on analysing FRT’s global application.2 The fourth, fifth and sixth
chapters scrutinise the pros and cons of the technology, seeking to understand its potential benefits and harms. 3 The last chapter
critically evaluates FRT from an individual and societal point of view.4 Finally, in the epilogue, the writers share their
perspectives concerning possible future FRT deployment and implementation paths. 5 Considering the diversity of FRT
problems extensively tackled in the book and the richness of the analysis, I have decided to narrow my focus in this book review
to parts of the analysis that appealed to my interest as a legal scholar working on the deployment of FRT in Brazil.
In the introduction, Andrejevic and Selwyn emphasise two of the most significant implications of FRT deployment that are
repeatedly addressed throughout the book: the prospect of an omnipresent surveillance state and the establishment of a new
stage in our comprehension of privacy. The authors perceive that FRT establishes a decisive shift in monitoring capability
caused by the promise of ubiquitous and remote identification.6 They demonstrate what society can expect from the pervasive
deployment of this cutting-edge tool, indicating that, eventually, people will need to choose between the maintenance of their
privacy and anonymity in public spaces and the promises of FRT, namely an increase in efficiency, convenience, security and
control.
In the same section of the book, the authors analyse the historical development of FRT, specifically, the computational
techniques for developing facial matching.7 The most relevant people in this regard were the United States (US) researcher
1
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 1–55.
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 56–77.
3
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 78–158.
4
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 159–180.
5
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 181.
6
This dystopian scenario made Nora Khan designates FRT as the ‘machine eye’, in which images of people are uninterruptedly surveilled,
labelled, sorted, and analysed by computerised technology (Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 21).
7
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 1–25.
Except where otherwise noted, content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International Licence. As an open access journal, articles are free to use with proper attribution. ISSN: 2652-4074
(Online)
2
221
© The Author/s 2023
Volume 5 (1) 2023
Book Review
Woodrow (‘Woody’) Wilson Bledsoe and his collaborators Helen Chan Wolf and Charles Bisson, who spent significant time
in the 1960s working ‘under the guise of the Panoramic Research company based in Palo Alto’. 8 As explained by the authors,
the scientific approach during the 1960s and 1970s focused on establishing the primary capabilities of FRT. These priorities
only changed between the 1990s and 2010s, at which point the attention mostly turned to exploring commercial opportunities.
Moreover, the scholars demonstrate that during this time, FRT’s large-scale application started to affect our private lives and
social interactions in an unprecedented way.9
While the book’s introduction explains FRT’s technical and commercial evolution, Chapter 2, ‘Facial Recognition:
Underpinning Concepts and Concerns’, analyses its distinct capabilities or functionalities.10 The authors detail three different
capabilities of FRT.
The first, the verification task, addresses the question of whether someone is who they say they are. It is also called a one-toone (1:1) matching because the image of the person claiming to be who they are is compared to one located in a document.11
Authentication is the aim. The second, the identification task, is a much more intricate process. In contrast with authentication,
this is a one-to-many or one-to-all (1:n) matching process. In practical terms, the matched image is usually found in previous
photographs located in large databases, such as national ID cards. Finally, the third capability is facial analysis. This involves
inference; that is, it seeks to distil the unique characteristics of a person as well as what emotions they might be feeling. 12
According to Andrejevic and Selwyn, when the verification task fails (when FRT misidentifies someone), it has the potential
to bring considerable negative consequences to people, such as denial of access to health assistance and sources of credit. A
similar risk is evident when the identification task is at play. However, in this case, the consequences can be even more severe
because this functionality is commonly deployed by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to identify suspected
criminals.13
Andrejevic and Selwyn strongly criticise the idea of technological neutrality throughout Chapter 2. According to them, the
increased adoption and (mis)use of FRT by law enforcement agencies during the last decade proves how inaccurate and untrue
it is to affirm that these technologies are merely neutral tools.14 The chapter also briefly explores biased outcomes—highlighting
the propensity of FRT systems to misrecognise people of colour and other demographics—and the unlikelihood of these being
eliminated. Specifically, the authors demonstrate that FRT is a device conceived and developed by human actors. Therefore,
subjectivity is the norm and objectivity the exception. From the authors’ perspective, the idea of creating a neutral and objective
FRT system is a fantasy because FRT developers cannot entirely surmount their biases and prejudices, which are intentionally
or unintentionally installed in the machine. This is why establishing robust legal mechanisms and safeguards is so essential.
Chapter 3, ‘Mapping the Facial Recognition Landscape’, explains how different commercial entities 15 and government
institutions16 are central to any critical discussion of the recent rise of FRT and its future development. Additionally, this chapter
8
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 6. In the end, Panoramic Research had a more pragmatic approach, developing FRT’s capability for various
military intelligence and law enforcement applications. Bledsoe’s work concerning FRT was ground-breaking, and the book gives a detailed
account of his accomplishments.
9
The expansion of its use, caused by a shift in the surveillance landscape concerning risk detection and management, came especially after
the 9/11 attacks in the US, which announced a new meaning of threat assessment. It was the official start of the war on terror, which heralded
various new threats. Given this context, it is worthwhile to note that the authors problematise FRT deployment in various situations and
explain why society must carefully consider adopting FRT. In other words, they demonstrate how surveillance technologies are dangerous to
human rights and civil liberties (e.g., freedom of movement, freedom of association and assembly, and right to equality and nondiscrimination), especially because FRT systems are fallible, intrusive, and prone to cause function creep (Andrejevic, Facial Recognition,
97–103).
10
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 26–55. The authors approach this subject once more in pages 144–149, examining these functions through
a new lens and aiming to explain how large-scale FRT deployment will inevitably lead to the stratification of the physical spaces and the
strengthening of social inequalities.
11
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 28.
12
The literature broadly explores facial analysis features, which profusely indicates how the inferences made are often invalid—in some
cases, even operationalising outdated theories of phrenology and physiognomy. This third functionality, as well as its serious consequences,
is strongly criticised by the authors (Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 133).
13
Davis, Facial Recognition Technology, 12.
14
As pointed out by the authors, human subjectivity and its prejudices play an essential role in the outcome of an algorithmic model. This
means the developers’ worldviews will be reflected in the development of FRT models. The harms and mistaken outcomes will continue
appearing because these tools are deployed in a biased society. In other words, biased results happen precisely because we live in a biase d
context imbued with “uneven social relations” (Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 135).
15
These entities mainly encompass the GAFAM corporations (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft).
16
One of the government institutions mentioned is the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is responsible for
supervising the ramifications of software development and emerging technologies and which has played an important role in overseeing the
222
Volume 5 (1) 2023
Book Review
addresses the issue of government involvement in facial recognition, emphasising that FRT development was accelerated by
US government funding and support from specific agencies.17 Therefore, this chapter scrutinises the role of corporations and
government agencies in advancing improvements in FRT. The chapter also briefly discusses the topic of oversight and
regulation. Many jurisdictions are considering various legislative interventions. The authors provide some insights on the
European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and some other legislative proposals currently being considered
globally, such as calls for a ban or a moratorium on the use of FRT.18
In Chapter 4, ‘Pro-social Applications’, the authors seek to answer whether FRT has a ’good’ application. They raise the
question of whether a massive installation of these devices is possible without simultaneously seriously jeopardising civil rights
and causing large-scale discrimination. Thus, the authors assess whether society can feasibly attain a proper balance. 19
Throughout the remaining part of Chapter 4, the authors address FRT deployment in a wide variety of scenarios, such as in
casinos, retail stores,20 schools, workplaces and hospitals. In addition to explaining FRT’s diversified applications, they also
address three significant characteristics that society should consider before deciding to adopt FRT on a large scale.
The first characteristic, and unlike what is espoused by common sense, is that FRT is fallible. Although the statistical number
of false positives and negatives remains low, a significant number of people continue to be erroneously identified by these
systems despite the advances in technological development. The second characteristic of FRT relates to ‘function creep’,
meaning its application to purposes distinct from the original applications21. FRT enables constant monitoring, recording and
tracking, and these functions can strengthen authoritarian regimes. Following this line of reasoning, authoritarianism could (and
can) occur even in democratic countries. The topic relates to ‘purpose limitation’, one of the core principles of data protection
laws. The third intrinsic characteristic is FRT’s intrusiveness. What might appear to occur exclusively in the realms of science
fiction decades ago is now something that has become a reality: reconstructing the timeline of any person. Unlike CCTV
cameras, FRT enables more granular surveillance and, consequently, makes it possible to collect information concerning a
person’s participation in specific events.
Chapters 5 and 6 offer strong arguments justifying why it is not feasible to want to ‘fix’ FRT, nor to make it ‘fairer’. In doing
so, the authors explore one of the main problems associated with FRT’s biased outcomes: how databases are created. The
authors clarify how the challenges faced by computer scientists are not only technical but also social, which makes algorithmic
bias even harder to eliminate. More specifically, Chapter 5, ‘Problematic Applications: Facial Recognition as an Inherent
Harm?’, addresses issues such as how biometric information has been used in criminal investigations for decades. Here, we can
consider examples like the use of fingerprint and DNA analysis.22 Moreover, in this chapter, Andrejevic and Selwyn succinctly
clarify why FRT has become so attractive to law enforcement agencies. Chapter 6, ‘Facial Features: Emerging Promises and
Possible Perils’, addresses the concerns related to the fact that our faces are becoming metadata. The reformulation of human
interactions would be an inescapable consequence in a society where our faces would be considered the ‘prime sources of
personal information’.23 The authors speculate about these effects and their repercussions, which helps shed light on the dangers
of this technological tool.
In the final chapter, ‘Making Critical Sense of FRT and Society’, Andrejevic and Selwyn point out the necessity of a holistic
approach to guarantee a safer development and deployment of FRT systems. According to the authors, this would require
‘ongoing conversations’24 involving computer scientists, policymakers and civil society organisations. The authors consider
that such conversations would offer a significant step towards a more substantial understanding of FRT’s complex issues.
Andrejevic and Selwyn finish the book by sharing three possible scenarios: the path of least resistance, complete prohibition,
unfolding of digital innovation since the 1980s. NIST’s primary function is to evaluate the most recent FRT systems to verify their accuracy
and reliability. Considering it has a relevant role as an institution responsible for evaluating FRT systems, it also performs the role of
establishing standardised practices worldwide as an official guarantee of the efficiency and effectiveness of the latest systems.
17
Andrejevic, Facial Recognition, 60.
18
Andrejevic, Facial Recogniti
