Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35309394›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2022

Protection of the rights of the individual when using facial recognition technology.

Jawahitha Sarabdeen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jawahitha SarabdeenCollege of Law, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) is used to match a photo of a person's face through a database that contains picture, name, and other records of someone that are already in the database. This technology uses biometric data with other available information and provides precise and accurate information about a person and his behaviour. FRT has positioned itself significantly advanced among all biometric-based technologies. The use of FRT by government agencies and commercial organisation comes under scrutiny as many of them use the technology in violation of right to privacy where the data subjects are either not informed of data collection or not consented for the data collection, use or storage of their data. Privation of regulatory measures allows government agencies and commercial organisations to operate with no real legal restraint and only under limited self-regulation in many common law countries. The research focuses on suitability of the existing law to regulate the use of FRT by analysing the criminal law and the civil law including the privacy laws in few common law countries. The analysis of the laws shows that passing of appropriate laws is inevitable as the existing laws are inadequate to regulate the use of FRT by government and commercial organisations.

Indexed as

Civil lawCriminal law and ethicsData protectionFacial recognition technologyPrivacy

Identifiers

PMID35309394
PMCPMC8927940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.