When Convenience Compromises Rights: How the European Union and Washington State Confront Facial Recognition Risks

As facial recognition technology (FRT) becomes increasingly embedded in policing, concerns and controversies over the lack of consent, misidentification, and mass surveillance grow. This Comment compares how the European Union (EU) and Washington State (Washington) regulate law enforcement’s use of FRT to mitigate risks to individual rights. The EU governs FRT use through a robust legal framework, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Law Enforcement Directive (LED), and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which offer protections against these risks. In contrast, Washington’s pioneering statute, Wash. Rev. Code section 43.386, promotes transparency and limits the use of FRT. However, the statute does not provide enforceable rights, as it focuses more on internal oversight than on granting individuals direct remedies. This comparative analysis concludes that while both frameworks attempt to balance government convenience with civil liberties, the EU’s rights-centered model likely provides stronger protections. Accordingly, United States jurisdictions ought to adopt protections modeled on the EU’s rights-based framework to safeguard civil liberties against the risks posed by FRT more effectively.