Home » Eye Tracking » A Healthy Debate: Eye Tracking and an Individual’s Privacy

A Healthy Debate: Eye Tracking and an Individual’s Privacy

A Healthy Debate: Eye Tracking and an Individual’s Privacy As new technology enters our world, with it comes new questions about its usage, function, and ethical issues. Eye tracking is no exception. Because eye- and pupil-tracking devices have the ability to infer identity and emotion, both personal concepts, it’s no wonder that it has become a hot topic in the areas of security, public privacy, and civil liberties.

Recently, a group of Republican lawmakers in Washington D.C. have expressed concern over privacy issues of a new screening device that utilizes eye-tracking technology and is currently being developed by the United States government.

The Department of Homeland Security is putting efforts into a $20 million trial program entitled Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST). FAST is a homeland security effort that incorporates an eye-tracking device calibrated to gauge abnormal pupil size. Additional information comes from an accompanying laser radar that monitors a person’s heart and respiratory rate, as well as a thermal camera that can detect changes in skin temperature. The technology also works with a Nintendo Wii balance board – a widely available video game balancing device – to detect nervous fidgeting and abnormal movements. The collected physiological and behavioral data is immediately fed into an algorithm, which creates an analysis for security personnel to evaluate for suspicious behavior and potential threat identification and is designed to spot potentially threatening individuals at airports, sporting events, public spaces, and even national borders.

Civil liberties are an obvious issue at play here, and it’s no surprise that debates like these are beginning to erupt within the halls of the nation’s capitol. As exceedingly personal information is collected on humans in public spaces, debate will take place and boundaries will need to be defined in order to protect an individual’s privacy.

It’s really a gentle balance, if you think about it. How much information do you want to give up to the government in return for secure public spaces, safe travel, and the comfort and confidence that come with potentially stronger security measures? Some prefer the inconvenience of longer, slower lines at airports, as a trade-off for safety, while others, like Republican Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) remain skeptical.

“It’s crazy what you have to do to get on an airplane,” he said in recent interview on the subject with The Hill. “I’m on an airplane every three or four days. I want the airplane to be as secure as possible, but oh my goodness, you get treated like a criminal.”

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security says that information will not be stored, and will only be analyzed temporarily, detecting momentary changes in a person’s baseline physiological traits and monitoring slight differences in these traits as the individual moves through the security process. They note that the device is being designed as gender and race neutral, and is to be incorporated with other information so security personnel need not rely solely on slight physiological and behavioral changes, but a combination of signals that can identify potential threats. Still, Republican lawmakers are sponsoring bills to fight what they deem an invasion of personal privacy.

As eye-tracking and other physiological detection systems become developed, more advanced, and widely available, expect additional healthy debate amongst lawmakers and the public that elect them.

A Healthy Debate: Eye Tracking and an Individual’s Privacy

Categories