Here’s the translation into American English:
—
Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) is under scrutiny in the U.S. judicial system, especially following a recent decision by a New Jersey appellate court. In June 2023, this court ruled that prosecutors must provide detailed information on how FRT works and its limitations in criminal cases, in the context of the case State of New Jersey v. Arteaga. This ruling is based on the premise that both the defendant and the public have the right to understand the use of this technology for identifying suspects.
The court emphasized the need to protect defendants’ due process rights by allowing them to assess the reliability of the technological tools used against them. This decision comes at a time when concerns about the accuracy of facial recognition algorithms are growing increasingly alarming; studies have shown that these technologies exhibit significant error rates, particularly among people of color and transgender and non-binary individuals.
Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) have collaborated again to submit an amicus brief in the case State of New Jersey v. Miles, which questions the use of FRT to identify a suspect in a criminal investigation. This case is currently under review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, focusing on the urgent need for transparency in the use of this technology.
The necessity to disclose information about the functioning, error rate, and origin of FRT software is crucial not only to protect defendants’ rights but also to ensure that judicial decisions are based on accurate evidence. Statistics show that the use of facial recognition increases the risk of errors that can lead to wrongful and harmful arrests, particularly for the most vulnerable communities.
Moreover, transparency in FRT benefits the public at large, which has the right to scrutinize the technology impacting judicial proceedings. According to the New Jersey Constitution and the right to information, access to such data fosters oversight of the justice system and bolsters confidence in court outcomes.
In a context of growing concern about biases and errors in FRT, the demand for accountability has become more relevant than ever on the path toward a more equitable and just justice system.
—
Referrer: MiMub in Spanish