Summarize the following in 250 words: Ever since its initial introduction in the mid-1960s, the technology behind public facial recognition has increased exponentially in complexity and accuracy to where it is in 2023. Although the software has many positive benefits associated with it including stronger security measures, far more efficient shopping, and protection against identity theft, it comes with its fair share of costs such as the potential for data vulnerabilities or technology manipulation. Arguably its most important cost is its threat to individual and societal privacy, personal freedoms, and personal rights. Utilized all around the world by many countries, including the United States, in a variety of different contexts, China is undoubtedly the country with a facial recognition system that is the most pervasive in society, with a huge database of faces. In China, public facial recognition allows access to certain types of private information, which can be used to maintain a semblance of control over the general public, however, it can also be used to protect their livelihoods. 
One example of its use in China is Beijing’s Temple of Heaven installing face scanners to catch toilet paper thieves. In China many public restrooms aren’t equipped with toilet paper, however, Beijing’s Temple of Heaven was one of the few places where there was toilet paper available for patrons to use. In an attempt to curb the theft from the building, facial scanners were installed to only supply patrons with limited supplies. This has caused complaints from many people, stating that the quantity isn’t enough and also that it’s too slow as it takes around 30 seconds to fully print out the paper (Andrews, 2021). A second example of this surveillance is found in many public schools, where cameras have been installed above the blackboards whose sole purpose is to monitor a student’s facial expressions. Every 30 seconds the cameras feed the data to a machine-learning model that analyzes the facial expressions and determines whether the student is focused or not (Chan, 2018). It then sends this information to the professor and the professor grades them per the results that are returned. Not only does the system take in facial expressions, but it also monitors students’ actions and functions as a replacement for student IDs as students can buy things in the local campus store with just their faces (Tone, 2022).
These are only two examples of the advancements that China has made with its facial recognition system, but between 2010 and 2018, the number of face scanners installed in China grew by over 800% (Tone, 2022).  This ever-expanding increase in its usage raises and highlights a myriad of ethical concerns. According to G2, a peer-to-peer review site, the top six ethical concerns related to these systems in the US are racial bias due to testing inaccuracies, racial discrimination in law enforcement, data privacy, lack of informed consent and transparency, mass surveillance, and data breaches and ineffective legal support (Gangarapu, 2022). Although these considerations were written with the US in mind, all six of these can be translated into the ethical issues in China’s case. While some are more direct, such as mass surveillance and data privacy issues, others take on a different meaning. For example, while racial discrimination in law enforcement in the US mostly disadvantages African Americans, in China the software is being used to discriminate against Uighur Muslims. On the counterargument side, there are benefits to this massive increase, namely protection against identity theft and security, that should be weighed against the cost to ethically examine the issue at hand. Overall, public facial recognition can bring positive and negative effects to society which becomes a complex ethical issue that can be analyzed from different perspectives such as Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics. 
Beginning with deontology, it is mainly associated with Immanuel Kant who bases the correctness of actions on fulfilling the duties of the individual performing such actions (Taylor. R.M, 2013). Therefore, by understanding the duties of the people performing facial recognition on a large scale; deontological ethics can help us understand the ethical implications of China's use of facial recognition technology. Such analysis must determine if the use of facial recognition adheres to the categorical imperative, the formula of humanity, the universalizability principle, and the overall moral worth of actions. 
From a deontological perspective, the formula of humanity states that individuals have inherent value and dignity, and they should be treated as ends in themselves, rather than as mere means to achieve some other goal (Kant, 1993). The use of facial recognition technology in public places such as airports, train stations, and shopping malls in China may be considered a violation of this principle since it treats individuals as mere means to achieve security and surveillance objectives (Dou. E, 2021). Facial recognition technology invades individuals' privacy by tracking their movements and activities in public places, without their consent or knowledge. Therefore, individuals are not being treated as autonomous agents capable of making their own decisions and living their lives autonomously. Instead, they are being monitored and controlled by the state, which undermines their dignity and freedom. 
Additionally, the use of such technology in public places in China may be considered unethical due to the idea of categorical imperatives. According to Kant, an action is good only if it conforms with a maxim that should be unquestionably universalized (Kant, 1993). In other words, an action is ethical as long as it follows rules that can become a universal law. China's use of facial recognition technology violates this principle because if it were to become a universal law, it would result in a world where everyone is constantly under surveillance, with no privacy or freedom.
Furthermore, facial recognition technology poses ethical concerns regarding the risk of bias and discrimination, as the accuracy of the system is not equal for all individuals, with higher error rates for people with darker skin tones and women (Mozur. P, 2019). From a deontological perspective, the use of facial recognition in law enforcement and security contexts may perpetuate existing biases and discrimination against certain groups of people. This issue is exacerbated by China's use of facial recognition technology, as the government has utilized the system to monitor and suppress the Uighur Muslim minority in Xinjiang province (Mozur. P, 2019). This kind of use of facial recognition technology further violates the categorical imperative, as it creates a moral dilemma wherein one cannot imagine the maxim of such an action becoming a universal law. Moreover, such utilization of facial recognition lacks moral worth because the action is not performed from a sense of duty, which is the necessity of acting from respect for the moral law. Instead, the action is performed for the purpose of improving security measures in China. Finally, the arbitrary detention and persecution of individuals based on their identity, as enabled by facial recognition technology, is a clear violation of the formula of humanity as it treats the victims as means to achieve better security measures. 
In addition to the categorical imperative and formula of humanity, deontological ethics dictates that actions should be judged based on their adherence to moral principles, rather than their outcomes. Kant describes a duty as the necessity of respecting the law; therefore, actions with moral worth must always adhere to the law regardless of its purpose. However, China's use of facial recognition technology is a prime example of actions that lack respect for the law. This is largely due to the lack of transparency and accountability in the deployment of the technology. Additionally, the lack of transparency around how this technology is used and who has access to it undermines the principle of transparency and accountability which are crucial in modern justice systems. These actions lack moral worth simply because they do not adhere to fundamental ethical principles and prioritize the interests of the state over the rights and dignity of the individual. Ultimately, a balance must be struck between security and privacy for facial recognition to be deployed; such balance must be achieved by adhering to moral principles and respecting humanity by treating Chinese citizens as ends in themselves. 

While deontology focuses on the actions themselves, utilitarianism cares more about the consequences of said actions. In its purest form, act utilitarianism operates under the simple principle that actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people no matter what it takes to commit those actions. A modified form of utilitarianism that takes into account the idea that sometimes the action associated with the greatest good is extremely corrupt or immoral is rule utilitarianism. Under this framework, actions seek to follow general rules that produce the greatest good for the greatest number. The ideal of the greatest good for the greatest number can be measured in terms of the utility associated with outcomes, i.e. the total satisfaction or value of the benefits subtracted by the value of costs for outcomes. In the context of China, weighing the ethicality of their FRT systems requires weighing its perceived benefits, mainly increased safety, against its perceived costs, such as invasion of privacy and rights.
Those following the ideals of act utilitarianism would unequivocally support China’s use of public facial recognition technology as its benefits outweigh the costs in terms of citizen utility. Ironically, utilitarianism ideals have been part of the backbone of the decision-making process for the Chinese government following World II. For instance, the Lowy Institute, an independent foreign policy think-tank based out of Australia, states that “late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping replaced dogmatic Maoism with pragmatic utilitarianism…(for) one objective - economic growth” (Yu, 2018) when he came to power in 1978. From there, “utilitarianism created China’s economic euphoria, and with it the delusion that it may surpass fundamental human moral challenges”. Although the idea may not be as ever-present under Xi Jinping’s orthodox communist regime, utilitarian ideals certainly pervaded its way into Chinese society, especially in the form of helping to make the country better, no matter the cost to its citizens.
 As aforementioned, FRT in China is mainly used as a form of state surveillance, as it “races to become the first to implement a pervasive system of algorithmic surveillance” (Diamond and Mitchell, 2018). One example of the way they seek to achieve this is by developing a “citizen-score” to incentivize good behavior through a series of cameras. With an invasion of privacy at its costs, it comes with the benefit of deterring citizens from stealing, breaking traffic laws, murdering, selling drugs, or committing other petty or serious crimes. Society as a whole would be better off with this change under act utilitarianism, where the ends justify the means, as the citizen score helps keep citizens safe without them even having to think about it. For a hypothetical case of the citizen score in action, consider “a 17-year-old teenage boy (walking) into a liquor store” to buy beer with a fake ID (Carzo, 2010). Currently, in the United States, this is a scenario that happens far too often and easily, as fake IDs become more realistic. However, in a situation such as the one China is in the process of implementing, instantly “an FRT system…alert(s) the clerk behind the counter”, making it impossible for the boy to buy alcohol and thus making the world as a whole safer. FRT’s positive consequences are the prevention of the child breaking the law, preventing the “potential over-consumption of alcohol”, and improving the happiness of those close to him by keeping him safe, all with an associated cost of decreased privacy. 
Rule utilitarianism’s perspective on China’s increasing FRT usage holds a similar opinion to act utilitarianism with a caveat. The main difference between the set ethical theories is that while rule utilitarianism always seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, individuals must also commit actions limited by a general code of conduct. For example, consider two Chinese citizens A and B. A murders B in broad daylight in the middle of a city street and using their widespread facial recognition technology, A is caught on the other side of the city and arrested for him. Under both act and rule utilitarianism, this would be an acceptable use of the technology as it was used to prevent a potential serial killer from murdering again without violating a code of conduct. Now consider the toilet paper theft example. Here act utilitarianism would argue in favor of its usage, as it is allowing as many people as possible to have access to toilet paper, while also preventing the potential theft of it. Meanwhile, rule utilitarianism’s perspective is not as crystal clear, as a potential “general rule” for the code of conduct could be that individuals should have unlimited access to basic needs, such as toilet paper. Overall, China’s FRT is in line with the ideals of act utilitarianism across the board, while rule utilitarianism says it likely goes too far. On a different side of the ethical spectrum, virtue ethics views the situation in a different light.
Virtue ethics is a moral philosophy that focuses on the character of the individual and their morals rather than focusing on the actions themselves or the outcome of the action. The benefit of this is that it doesn’t rely on a rigid moral code and universal principles. Virtues are qualities of one’s character that are considered to be morally good. Examples of virtues are courage, justice, wisdom, and compassion. Analyzing the Chinese surveillance state through the lens of virtue ethics shows that while it may not be virtuous, it encourages the citizens to be more virtuous.
In Virtue ethics, the Golden mean principle refers to finding the right balance between deficiency and excess between different virtues. This can be applied to China’s use of facial recognition as privacy and security are two virtues which are opposing each other. While security does get enhanced due to criminals being easier to catch and the system itself being a crime deterrent, privacy gets sacrificed as widespread surveillance is required to ensure security and that criminals won’t be able to sneak into blind spots in the system and effectively disappear. The promotion of the virtue of security is visible when three citizens with a previous criminal history checked into a hotel at the same time, the police were notified of a potential crime risk. (Mozur et al. 2022) This level of risk mitigation and tracking is notorious enough that when citizens with a previous criminal history turn off their cell phones, police may show up at their houses to check for the individual. A clear example of a violation of privacy is that they monitor their actions without their permission. It also reduces their autonomy and individuality as citizens are being coerced to behave how the government wants them to with little room to maneuver. When citizens are being arbitrarily held in detention or generally punished without any particular evidence, it promotes fear, where people are afraid to engage in activities that may be deemed inappropriate by the government. This approach can lead to a lack of trust between citizens and the government, which can be detrimental to society's stability and so a potential virtuous solution would be to promote clarity within the surveillance system where the citizens wouldn’t need to fear it as much as they would know the rules to follow.
	Another core concept in Aristotelian Virtue ethics is the notion of eudaimonia which translates as happiness or welfare but can be understood to mean achieving happiness through the pursuit of virtues. In other words, happiness or pleasure is the result of a virtuous life. From the perspective of eudaimonia, China’s use of facial recognition software can be seen as ethical as it promotes the general happiness of the population. This is because the Chinese Surveillance system has implemented strict regulations that citizens must follow, and they are monitored to ensure compliance. This system has helped to create an orderly society, where people feel secure and harmonious, increasing eudaimonia in the process. This approach helps maintain social cohesion, which is essential to promoting stability and prosperity. For example, the use of facial recognition technology has been successful in catching criminals and reducing crime rates in China. A man was caught in a crowd of 60,000 people thanks to facial recognition technology, and another case where a man was arrested for fraud after being caught by a facial recognition system in a train station. (BBC, 2018) These successes suggest that the surveillance system has contributed to public safety and security in China. A woman with mental illness left her house, and the camera installed by her records her movements so the police can track her in case something happens to her.  (Mozur et al. 2022) This promotes safety where individuals that may not be able to take full care of themselves can be protected without having a constant presence near them.
In contrast, eudaimonia would also identify that the Chinese Surveillance State is potentially unethical as it enables the government to abuse its power, as the government has the power to punish citizens for activities it deems inappropriate, without any transparent or fair judicial process. This approach can lead to unjust and unfair treatment of citizens, which goes against the virtues of justice and fairness and promotes widespread negativity. Citizens with only the potential of protesting may get notified by the police when they start traveling to protest-heavy places.  (Mozur et al. 2022)
While the Chinese government's implementation of surveillance technology has led to a safer, more orderly, and more efficient society, it also violates privacy and autonomy, promotes conformity over individuality, and promotes fear over trust. Additionally, the system enables the abuse of power, which can lead to unjust and unfair treatment of citizens. If a system of checks and balances were implemented and the system became more transparent, the system could become more ethical. Especially since that virtues are context dependent and what is seen as virtuous in some countries may not be seen as important in others. The Chinese government needs to balance the benefits of surveillance technology with the virtues of its citizens.
Regardless of which moral standpoint is taken when discussing government surveillance in China, several things may arise from this. These range from more minor things like making it easier for parents to keep track of their kids to the worry of having a government abuse the power that this gives them.
On one side there are benefits to having a widespread facial recognition system. As mentioned previously parents will be able to keep track of their kid's location to ensure they're safe. The police and other figures of authority can use it to track down kidnapped or lost children/people. It can be used to make transactions more secure, similar to how some schools are using a facial recognition system to sell products to students. Or, as shown with the toilet paper, it can be used to help prevent theft. All of these are things that will generally be seen as beneficial to society as a whole as it helps keep people safe and helps lower the crime rate and the number of criminals that escape the authorities. However, there are still some drawbacks to such a system.
The main drawback, and the easiest to see, is the power that this would give a government. Widespread facial recognition makes it so that the government, or whoever controls the system, will always have access to where individuals are and what they have been up to. Having such a system with a more tyrannical government in power would be highly detrimental to that country's society as it could very easily be used to maintain control and fear over the population. In addition, such a system removes the possibility for privacy that a lot of people like. It'd be even easier to keep track of someone's routines and to know what they are up to and at what time which is something that many people would rather keep private.
Another impact that this can have would be in the court. It’ll be easier for people to be convicted because there will be video evidence of the theft happening, paired with the system that identifies the criminal as you. However, this leads to a lot of problems, especially with an inaccurate system. It’d be impossible to make a system that always identifies a person correctly so this could lead to someone being wrongly convicted, an issue that is already happening today but that could be aggravated by a system like this. Especially if the system is more inaccurate with a specific race or skin color. Assume that the system is trained with mostly Caucasians. It would understand very well what the key differences are between different faces of white people but if we then test it on a group of Asians it’d be possible that it can’t find those key differences in them and underperforms. This is something that already happens to real people where non-Asians state that “All Asians look the same.” This is simply due to not knowing what to look for that distinguishes people.
	While the Chinese surveillance state has its immediate benefits such as a safer, efficient society, however, when it gets analyzed through various ethical frameworks, the issue becomes more nuanced. From deontology, China’s use of facial recognition raises concerns about privacy violations and abuse of power, violating principles of treating individuals as ends in themselves under the Formula for Humanity, universal rules under the Universalizability Principle, and respect for the law while lacking transparency and authority. From an act utilitarianism perspective, the use of this surveillance system is undoubtedly bringing more pleasure than pain to society, whereas a rule utilitarianism perspective is a little grayer and depends on the context surrounding the specific case at hand. Finally, when analyzed from the perspective of virtue ethics, the ideals of golden means between deficiency and excess and eudaimonia also disapprove of its continued utilization. In conclusion, the use of a widespread facial recognition system brings up a lot of ethical dilemmas when observed through different lenses; however, if it is properly regulated we can minimize or resolve most of those dilemmas and allow the community to use the benefits safely.