{"database": "openregs", "table": "crs_reports", "rows": [["R48935", "Facial Recognition Technology: Definitions, Applications, and Policy Considerations for Congress", "2026-05-04T04:00:00Z", "2026-05-06T14:38:04Z", "Active", "Reports", "Dominique T. Greene-Sanders", null, "Facial recognition technology (FRT) is a type of biometric technology designed to identify or verify an individual by analyzing unique and measurable facial features. FRT has received attention from policymakers and the public, in large part because of technical advances and use by both public and private sector entities. FRT usage has the potential to optimize performance, enhance security, and increase the speed of tasks that were once handled by humans (e.g., identity verification in airports). The use of FRT has raised issues regarding data privacy and disclosure of its use, as well as bias and accuracy\u2014particularly across different demographic groups. \nThere is no universally accepted definition of FRT, and disagreement persists among technology developers, policymakers, and academics regarding what the term includes when used in various contexts. Legislation and guidelines have offered differing definitions of FRT, ranging from narrow ones focused on verification and identification to broader interpretations that include emotion detection, age estimation, and facial characteristic classifications. Different definitions may affect which technologies are categorized as FRT.\nFRT is employed across a wide range of sectors, including the military, law enforcement, financial services, public health, and education, as well as in activities such as employment decisions and immigration enforcement. FRT usage offers several potential benefits, such as increased security, efficiency, and convenience. Additionally, FRT usage raises concerns, for example, whether FRT systems are designed and deployed in ways that avoid or mitigate bias and are transparent and accurate\u2014particularly across different demographic groups. FRT applications in three particular sectors\u2014transportation and airport security, housing, and law enforcement\u2014have garnered specific interest from the public, Congress, and industry, based on perceptions of the frequency of FRT\u2019s use and its potential risks and benefits.\nSome state and local governments have passed laws to prohibit or restrict FRT use, especially by law enforcement. As Congress debates the use of FRT across various sectors, it may consider an approach that balances support for innovation and the beneficial uses of FRT while minimizing potential risks. In particular, Congress may consider how FRT is defined in order to avoid inadvertent restriction of narrower identity verification uses, such as personal smartphone access. Considerations for Congress might also include whether existing mechanisms are sufficient for determining accountability regarding FRT use by federal agencies and others. Finally, Congress may also consider requirements for disclosure of FRT use and for testing and validation of FRT systems, potential ways to require FRT system evaluations for federal use, and mechanisms to incentivize FRT system evaluations for commercial use.\n", "https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48935/R48935.2.pdf", "https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48935.html"]], "columns": ["id", "title", "publish_date", "update_date", "status", "content_type", "authors", "topics", "summary", "pdf_url", "html_url"], "primary_keys": ["id"], "primary_key_values": ["R48935"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.4936350742354989, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}