{"id":{"repo_id":"nps","oai_identifier":"oai:calhoun.nps.edu:10945/72587"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/nps/oai:calhoun.nps.edu:10945/72587","repository":{"repo_id":"nps","name":"Naval Postgraduate School","base_url":"https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"REGULATING FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT’S USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY","abstract":"This research examines optimal regulation allowing federal law enforcement to use facial recognition technology (FRT) while protecting civil liberties. Through a literature review, a comparative analysis of the European Union’s Law Enforcement Directive (LED), and a policy analysis for U.S. regulation it evaluates frameworks balancing effectiveness and proportionality. Findings show that comprehensive legislation upholding fairness, accountability, and purpose limitations, complemented by independent auditing and oversight, can enable public safety benefits while constraining unfettered use. However, flexibility is imperative; legal, ethical, and technical dimensions remain uncertain. The research concludes that nuanced, principled governance provides the most prudent path. The next steps involve ongoing stakeholder engagement, implementation planning, and impact evaluation to refine balanced oversight as case law, technology, and societal norms evolve. This analysis fills a gap by evaluating policy tradeoffs—equipping stakeholders with evidence to inform sound FRT governance. With adaptable oversight, facial recognition can be steered toward just ends.","abstract_html":"This research examines optimal regulation allowing federal law enforcement to use facial recognition technology (FRT) while protecting civil liberties. Through a literature review, a comparative analysis of the European Union’s Law Enforcement Directive (LED), and a policy analysis for U.S. regulation it evaluates frameworks balancing effectiveness and proportionality. Findings show that comprehensive legislation upholding fairness, accountability, and purpose limitations, complemented by independent auditing and oversight, can enable public safety benefits while constraining unfettered use. However, flexibility is imperative; legal, ethical, and technical dimensions remain uncertain. The research concludes that nuanced, principled governance provides the most prudent path. The next steps involve ongoing stakeholder engagement, implementation planning, and impact evaluation to refine balanced oversight as case law, technology, and societal norms evolve. This analysis fills a gap by evaluating policy tradeoffs—equipping stakeholders with evidence to inform sound FRT governance. With adaptable oversight, facial recognition can be steered toward just ends.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Patel, Sapan"],"institution":"Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"National Security Affairs (CHDS)","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Morag, Nadav","Nieto-Gomez, Rodrigo"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2023,"date_issued":"2023-12","date_published":"2023-12","updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:26:27Z","subjects":[],"languages":[],"rights":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10945/72587","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Morag, Nadav","Nieto-Gomez, Rodrigo"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["National Security Affairs (CHDS)"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Patel, Sapan"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2024-02-19T22:56:58Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2024-02-19T22:56:58Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2023-12"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10945/72587"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This research examines optimal regulation allowing federal law enforcement to use facial recognition technology (FRT) while protecting civil liberties. Through a literature review, a comparative analysis of the European Union’s Law Enforcement Directive (LED), and a policy analysis for U.S. regulation it evaluates frameworks balancing effectiveness and proportionality. Findings show that comprehensive legislation upholding fairness, accountability, and purpose limitations, complemented by independent auditing and oversight, can enable public safety benefits while constraining unfettered use. However, flexibility is imperative; legal, ethical, and technical dimensions remain uncertain. The research concludes that nuanced, principled governance provides the most prudent path. The next steps involve ongoing stakeholder engagement, implementation planning, and impact evaluation to refine balanced oversight as case law, technology, and societal norms evolve. This analysis fills a gap by evaluating policy tradeoffs—equipping stakeholders with evidence to inform sound FRT governance. With adaptable oversight, facial recognition can be steered toward just ends."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["REGULATING FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT’S USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Morag, Nadav","Nieto-Gomez, Rodrigo"],"dc:contributor.department":["National Security Affairs (CHDS)"],"dc:creator":["Patel, Sapan"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2024-02-19T22:56:58Z"],"dc:date.available":["2024-02-19T22:56:58Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2023-12"],"dc:description.abstract":["This research examines optimal regulation allowing federal law enforcement to use facial recognition technology (FRT) while protecting civil liberties. Through a literature review, a comparative analysis of the European Union’s Law Enforcement Directive (LED), and a policy analysis for U.S. regulation it evaluates frameworks balancing effectiveness and proportionality. Findings show that comprehensive legislation upholding fairness, accountability, and purpose limitations, complemented by independent auditing and oversight, can enable public safety benefits while constraining unfettered use. However, flexibility is imperative; legal, ethical, and technical dimensions remain uncertain. The research concludes that nuanced, principled governance provides the most prudent path. The next steps involve ongoing stakeholder engagement, implementation planning, and impact evaluation to refine balanced oversight as case law, technology, and societal norms evolve. This analysis fills a gap by evaluating policy tradeoffs—equipping stakeholders with evidence to inform sound FRT governance. With adaptable oversight, facial recognition can be steered toward just ends."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10945/72587"],"dc:publisher":["Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School"],"dc:rights":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."],"dc:title":["REGULATING FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT’S USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY"],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:26:27Z"}