In February, vending machines with facial recognition technology were introduced to UW campus, a fact that unknown to students until an error message appeared on screen. Shortly after, UW had the machines swiftly removed amidst growing concerns from students. Despite the machine’s removal, there was a lingering question whether we would be heavily monitored future.  

“The unplugging of the vending machines at here at the university is a positive outcome, but continuous vigilance, advocacy, and systemic change are necessary to protect students from ongoing surveillance harms,” said Krystle Shore, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Sociology and Legal Studies. Shore’s research is concerned with the usage of surveillance technology regarding social problems.  

With one concern down for students, another rises — this time, outside campus. 

More and more police forces are beginning to turn to facial recognition technology. However, some police forces find its use to conflict with citizens human rights. Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) falls into the latter of the two. WRPS spokesperson Chris Iden said that they “[are] not currently using Idemia or planning to implement Idemia in the immediate future.”  

Idemia is a biometrics and cryptography company, most notably having expertise in facial recognition technology. Idemia expertise is not to be understated as their facial recognition technology was ranked first by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2023.  

Iden further explained their rejected use of Idemia: “Prior to implementing any new technology, we are committed to completing an analysis of the solution to ensure privacy implications have been considered and that its use complies with the Criminal Code, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and any other relevant laws or legislation.” 

Regardless of WRPS response, other police forces like York Regional Police and Peel Regional Police use Idemia, albeit with the guidance of the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario. Still, this is cause for concern from many legal experts, who call on the federal government to enforce more regulation.  

“Regulating how technology can be used is an important part of protecting civil liberties and can help increase institutional transparency and accountability in instances where technology is misused. However, regulations alone are insufficient; we must also address technological harm proactively from a design standpoint,” Shore said.  

Police are not the only ones seeing calls for more regulation. A CBC article mentions that the federal Economic Development Department went on to declare that Canadian law “could potentially” use the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act (PIPEDA) to regulate corporate collection of personal information as well.  

According to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, PIPEDA regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by private-sector organizations when committing commercial activities. Commercial activities can include “selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists.” 

Shore finds this move to a well needed development, however, the use of “could potentially” gives pause to whether this regulation will take place. Furthermore, she asserts that these kinds of regulations are vital to ensure corporations are responsible and transparent with their handling of personal information.  

The facial recognition technology within the vending machines was not known to students until by chance, an error message came up on the screen. Students were not informed of the use of such technology in a machine they believed simply dispensed snacks. This was not transparently conveyed to students.  

“I think this incident here at the university underscores the need for both private and public institutions to be transparent about the technologies they deploy and how (and why) they are deploying them,” Shore said. “We must remain aware of and resist surveillance practices both on and off campus, pushing for better surveillance regulations, the development of less intrusive technologies, and the scaling back of corporate interests.” 

Facial recognition technology continues to gain prominence in policing and corporate, growing calls for regulation to ensure an environment where human rights and surveillance can co-exist — even if that is not a voluntary choice made by society.