Facial Recognition Will Fail Without Public Trust – How Can the Industry Earn It?
Fri 20 Mar 2026 | Tony Kounnis
Facial recognition technology (FRT) rarely leaves the headlines for long. Whether it’s a supermarket cracking down on shoplifters or another regional police force implementing it to prevent or punish crime, there remains a steady stream of stories in the media about how, where, and why FRT is being used. And with that comes a healthy amount of debate.
Over the past decade, discussions around the technology have centred on regulation, accuracy and its use by law enforcement. These discussions are important, and in many cases necessary. But they often overlook a deeper issue that will ultimately determine whether facial recognition succeeds or stalls: public trust.
Indeed, capability alone does not guarantee adoption. History shows that even highly effective technologies can fail if the public does not accept how they are used. For facial recognition, the challenge is not simply complying with regulation, but earning what many industries describe as a ‘social licence’ to operate.
Without it, the long-term future of FRT remains uncertain.
How is Social Licence Earned in Practice?
The concept of social licence originates from industries such as energy and infrastructure, where large projects like housing estates or power stations require more than just legal approval to proceed. They depend on public acceptance, transparency and ongoing engagement with the communities they affect. The FRT sector must ensure that the same principle is applied to it.
After all, facial recognition sits at a rather sensitive intersection of security, identity and personal data – all of which have become increasingly hot topics in recent years
Most people use FRT – or biometric authentication of another form – on a daily basis, whether that’s to unlock their smartphone or access mobile banking apps. But even when deployed responsibly, it can evoke strong reactions because it involves biometric information that is deeply personal. As a result, public perception can influence adoption just as much as regulation or technological performance. That is why trust cannot be treated as a communications issue alone; it has to be built into the way systems are designed, deployed and governed from the outset.
This is not unique to biometrics. Many technologies that are now fully integrated into society once faced similar scrutiny.
Ten years ago, contactless payments were initially met with widespread concerns around fraud and data security. Fifty years before that, the introduction of CCTV networks sparked debates about surveillance and civil liberties when they were first introduced into Trafalgar Square.
Over time, these technologies have earned acceptance because their benefits became clear, safeguards improved and the organisations behind their deployment communicated more transparently about how and why they were used. FRT must now go on a similar journey.
The lesson is not that trust appears over time on its own, but that it is earned when organisations are open about the value, the limits and the safeguards surrounding a technology
Looking Beyond Compliance
That process has started with regulation from the government, and rightly so. Biometric technologies require robust governance frameworks to ensure they are used responsibly. But the sector can’t rely on legal frameworks to gain a social license.
Indeed, organisations may meet every legal requirement and still face public resistance if people feel that the technology is being introduced without adequate explanation or oversight. Regulation sets the minimum standard, but social acceptance requires much more.
For businesses and public sector bodies deploying facial recognition, this means addressing a broader set of considerations. Organisations need to be clear about why the technology is being used, the specific problem it is intended to solve, and whether alternative approaches have been assessed. At the same time, they must demonstrate how individuals’ rights are being protected and what safeguards are in place to ensure responsible use. That means being able to explain who has access to the data, how long it is retained, how accuracy is tested, and what happens if concerns or challenges are raised.
If the sector can’t do these things, then scepticism understandably grows.
Learning From the Past
History is often called the blueprint of the future, so drawing lessons from other technologies will be key to navigating public concerns.
One of the most important is the visibility of benefits. Technologies gain acceptance when people understand how they improve experiences, make them safer, save them money, and so forth.
In transport and travel, for example, biometric systems are increasingly used to streamline passenger journeys through airports and border control. When implemented correctly, facial recognition can simultaneously reduce queues, improve security and minimise reliance on physical documents.
Financial services offer another example. As digital banking expanded, institutions adopted biometric authentication to strengthen identity verification and reduce fraud. Customers gradually embraced these systems because they made interactions both safer and more convenient.
Transparency Must Be Foundational
If the industry wants to earn public confidence, transparency must move from being a recommendation or a compliance issue to a default practice.
Clear signage, accessible explanations and open communication about data handling policies can make a significant difference to public perception. When individuals understand the purpose of a system and the limits placed upon it, the technology becomes less opaque and less intimidating.
There should also be some strong accountability measures in place. Organisations should be prepared to explain how systems are tested for accuracy, how bias is monitored, and how data is stored and protected. If they can’t, they’re not only harming their business but the wider industry as well.
Stronger Governance
Strong accountability measures also need to be built into every deployment. FRT shouldn’t be thought of as a standalone tool implemented solely by IT departments. Decisions about its use require legal, ethical, and operational considerations, meaning oversight must involve multiple stakeholders across an organisation.
This increases buy-in across the business, but also means that a variety of data protection specialists, security leaders, compliance specialists, and senior executives all have a role to play in ensuring systems are deployed responsibly.
Trust is the Name of the Game
Facial recognition technology continues to evolve rapidly. Advances in machine learning, sensor quality and liveness detection are improving its accuracy and resilience across a growing range of use cases. But all the technological progress in the world is pointless if public perception isn’t on FRT’s side.
The industry has to show people that the technology deserves a place in everyday systems, and this will depend on whether organisations deploying it can demonstrate that it is being used responsibly, proportionately and transparently.
Innovation may drive facial recognition technology forward, but trust will determine how far it can go.
