Regulating AI-Based Remote Biometric Identification. Investigating the Public Demand for Bans, Audits, and Public Database Registrations

TL;DR

This study investigates how trust and perceptions of discrimination influence public demand for regulation of AI-based remote biometric identification systems in Germany, considering different use cases and modes of application.

Contribution

It provides empirical insights into the factors affecting public demand for regulation of RBI, highlighting the roles of trust and discrimination perceptions across various use scenarios.

Findings

Perceptions of discrimination increase demand for regulation.

Trust in AI and law enforcement decrease demand for bans.

Public does not differentiate regulation demand across different RBI applications.

Abstract

AI is increasingly being used in the public sector, including public security. In this context, the use of AI-powered remote biometric identification (RBI) systems is a much-discussed technology. RBI systems are used to identify criminal activity in public spaces, but are criticised for inheriting biases and violating fundamental human rights. It is therefore important to ensure that such systems are developed in the public interest, which means that any technology that is deployed for public use needs to be scrutinised. While there is a consensus among business leaders, policymakers and scientists that AI must be developed in an ethical and trustworthy manner, scholars have argued that ethical guidelines do not guarantee ethical AI, but rather prevent stronger regulation of AI. As a possible counterweight, public opinion can have a decisive influence on policymakers to establish boundaries and conditions under which AI systems should be used -- if at all. However, we know little about the conditions that lead to regulatory demand for AI systems. In this study, we focus on the role of trust in AI as well as trust in law enforcement as potential factors that may lead to demands for regulation of AI technology. In addition, we explore the mediating effects of discrimination perceptions regarding RBI. We test the effects on four different use cases of RBI varying the temporal aspect (real-time vs. post hoc analysis) and purpose of use (persecution of criminals vs. safeguarding public events) in a survey among German citizens. We found that German citizens do not differentiate between the different modes of application in terms of their demand for RBI regulation. Furthermore, we show that perceptions of discrimination lead to a demand for stronger regulation, while trust in AI and trust in law enforcement lead to opposite effects in terms of demand for a ban on RBI systems.