While facial recognition technology (FRT) has become increasingly common, public acceptance remains inconsistent.
In New Zealand, as in other countries, people are more accepting of FRT in specific contexts, such as at airport customs or for personal use, like unlocking smartphones.
By contrast, when FRT is used in retail settings, it often raises privacy concerns, as seen in Foodstuff North Island’s ongoing trial of live FRT in stores, currently under review by the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner.
Authority Trust Levels
Public trust varies significantly with the organization using FRT. Research from similar countries suggests that government applications generally receive higher acceptance, particularly for security-related purposes, such as identifying passengers at airports or investigating major crimes.
However, there is hesitation about broader applications, like minor offence detection or voter identification, which can seem intrusive.
Private sector use of FRT is met with even greater skepticism. The concerns are about data misuse by businesses as they will be in control of the technology and not government agencies.
Privacy Concerns
There has been some level of acceptance, still FRT’s growing presence has big privacy concerns. The technology’s application in retail and workplaces draws mixed reactions, with many people uneasy about being constantly recorded and identified without clear justification. While people may accept FRT to identify shoplifters, its use for marketing or customer tracking tends to raise red flags.
A 2024 survey by New Zealand’s privacy commissioner found that nearly half of respondents were concerned about FRT in retail, underscoring the discomfort with private sector uses that feel less transparent or unnecessary.
Expert Opinion and Public Discourse
Experts highlight that transparency, regulation, and context are essential to gaining public trust in FRT. Many argue for a social license that considers people’s concerns.
As the Privacy Commissioner evaluates FRT trials and considers a potential biometric code, there is a call for clear guidelines that outline permissible uses of FRT and protect citizens’ rights.
Research from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia shows that acceptance of FRT increases when its purpose is clear, and the technology is subject to strict oversight.
Conclusion
People in New Zealand recognise some benefits of FRT, especially when used by trusted authorities for safety and security. However, without careful consideration, regulation, and a better understanding of public opinion, concerns about privacy and misuse are likely to persist.
