Should the government use facial recognition technology for mass surveillance to enhance public safety?

No, I trust the technology but not the humans that could misuse it

Yes, as long as data is stored securely and not sold to third parties, and technology is used only in public spaces where expectation of privacy is not expected

Never for mass surveillance, but targeted surveillance should be permitted if a warrant showing probable cause of criminal or terrorist activity is acquired

Yes, but only to look for individuals whose image has been uploaded into a system to track those individuals specifically.

No, absolutely not this is a clear violation of mass privacy. As there is a boundary between being recorded accidentally and without mean to harm, categorize, or surveil. And purposefully scanning hundreds of thousands of faces with the means of scanning a database to find a specific person then categorizing and memorizing those faces. In short it is a violation of public privacy that everyone should be afforded.

No, facial recognition technology has shown itself to be wildly undependable and struggles to correctly identify POC, which could lead to the arrest of innocents.

There are both positives and negatives from this, but it can definitely be misused and people can use it for the wrong reasons.

Never mass surveillance, but targeted surveillance against criminals and terrorists should be permitted with a warrant showing probable cause

I think the government should use facial recognition technology for its own employees, not the public.

Yes, but only if it is tightly regulated and used with transparency. (especially because they are already watching us, so why not use it for good and safety)

Yes, but limit its use to extenuating circumstances such as stopping a terror plot or an abduction in process.

No, there are too many people that look similar for such a method to be effective. Fingerprints would be more acceptable.

Not for mass surveillance, but targeted surveillance should be permitted if a warrant showing probable cause of criminal or terrorist activity is acquired or if searching for missing persons.

if you used for the right reasons. knowing our government it won’t be. it should be used if needed and not at all times

No, this would only open the door for the government to eventually take complete control over every aspect of people's lives.

Yes and no. Yes, but only if its tightly regulated and used with absolute transparency, targets criminal hotspots. No, the tech could help but humans and AI can misuse it and it sets a dangerous precedent for government control, such as in Communist China.

Yes and no, I do believe it can be helpful for criminal recognization but I do think it could be faulty and could give the wrong information. It also can be misused.

No, I do not trust the technology, nor the humans that could misuse it, such as how it sets a dangerous precedent for government control over citizens

yes, but it has to use extreme regulations that make it so that the government is unable to use any extra information or things like that against you, and should only be used in public places, and never on private property or places that are unnecessary to have it

The technology isn’t good enough yet and has been shown to flag people who look similar but not the person they are looking for and that can be dangerous and can be misused

50/50,no becasue it can set a sense to the people that the government is controling them and it can also be miss used by people, but i also agree with using it in places that hold government information about weapons and war stratiges

No, the technology required for that is too unreliable and could cause issues and false recognitions.

This is a somewhat tricky question because it doesn't specify civilian or military. Absolutely not on civilians

I don’t trust technology, it is too easy to change your appearance with makeup, masks and surgery etc.

If a crime happens and a camera can recognize a face? Sure. But if you are scanning everyone’s face even when no crime is happening then no.

No I don't think its that complex yet so unless they make the technology more reliable then disagree.

I think it is acceptable but there should be no criminalization of acts to prevent it. Wearing a mask in public can not be seen as criminal simply because it prevents facial recognition.

yes, but only if it is highly regulated, transparent, and can easily be voted out of use by the people

I think it could be used in a highly regulated with boundaries and safeguards so that the government cannot use it for control.

Not until said facial recognition is completely rid of racial bias, which is highly unlikely in the status quo.

Yes, but only if there are ways to limit someone's facial recognition in case they need to hide from specific people. Of course, this should have to be confirmed by the government facilities using the technology and surveillance.

The thing is I agree with it. but also there also things that make me disagree with it. Like identical twins, they have very similar facial features. Also the cost, making taxes go up, and the income going up, but the more stuff will cost.

Yes but at the same time it will be very expensive and it would be weird knowing you are being watch 24/7.

I think we could use it to help ensure the safety of high-crime-rate communities, or if they are looking for somebody, but they should make sure that it can't be manipulated by the government or the people using it so they can use it for bad things.

While it could be useful to keep people safe it can also be used to harm U.S. citizens. I do not agree nor disagree.

No, technology fails sometimes and the government may misuse the technology to take control over citizens.

Yes, but only targeting criminal hotspots to protect the citizens. It could be misused, therefore they would need to have strict regulations and it would need to be used with transperency by the government

No, I trust the technology, but not the people, because our government is corrupt. This provides a dangerous motive for government control, and more control would mean the possibility of a totalitarian government.

Yes, but only after we have the resources to inexpensively implement it, and if it is tightly regulated

No because the impact that ai has on this world, globally and economically is unhealthy and inhumane.

I think there is a TON of grey area here. It could be beneficial in a situation where people that have committed crimes have gone on the run and have been hard to locate or finding missing persons. It could become a danger for people if it was able to be used by some of the same criminals that it might help to locate in my first thought. Free will can be a dangerous thing.

No, the Technology may identify someone incorrectly as someone else, possibly getting them arrested if it was assumed to be someone else with a criminal record.

no, because people can hack which can cause trouble but also yes it can help capture criminals and etc

Only if it is truly needed. Certain people should not be allowed to use it, because they will misuse it.

I feel that no matter how it gets regulated, there will always be some level of abuse and misuse over it. It would be very valuable for preventing dangers, but could be used in unsafe ways, or lead to others feeling unsafe.

Yes and implement a social credit system like China has so that we can have a society of true equality.

it sets a dangerous precedent for government control so it should be a city cited law that will be tightly regulated and used with transparency.

Only if it's tightly regulated and used to target criminal hotspots and protect vulnerable communities

Yes, but the use of it should be highly regulated and just in high-profile cases, where the public could be in danger.

I think it can be very dangerous if miss used, bug very well is already happening with our smart phones and technology all around.

Yes, but only if tightly regulated and used with transparency, ESPECIALLY in criminal hotspots to protect vulnerable communities

It is not possible to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to whether the government should use facial recognition for mass surveillance. This issue involves a complex trade-off between enhancing public safety and protecting individual rights like privacy and civil liberties, with significant ethical concerns on both sides.

Big Brother’s Always Watching War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength

This could be very helpful, but at the same time depending on who is looking it could have problems. like if someone was in the witness protection program. it makes me have more questions. and there are very few answers you can give for safety and other things. but could be a good thing if you are trying to find people who are evading the law and or people who are in danger.

Yes, but only for criminals and to monitor their whereabouts and activity. Law abiding citizens should not be monitored for other's crimes.

No, that sets a dangerous precedent. I do, however, think that targeted use of it could be effective if a warrant is required.

Yes, law enforcement or intelligence should be permitted to apply for facial recognition surveillance warrant in a similar manner to a search warrant.

Yes if it is in public spaces and is monitored on many levels so that those in charge do not misuse this surveillance, as well as having full transparency with those in surveillance footage.

Only in majorly crowded areas that experience crime and in private, extremely vital security areas. If implemented, this should come with Facial insurance option open to all people.

Yes, but only if its tightly regulated, used with transparency but anything found cannot be used against someone in the court of law unless it is some form of outrage crime like a murder.

I feel like businesses in criminal hotspots should already have their own security cameras that the businesses pay for and control.

Yes, but not as permanent systems like a train stop or business area, more like facial recognition from afar used with a warrant from law enforcement.

As much as I trust the purpose and use of facial recognition technology, our privacy still needs to be respected.

Yes, but only in important places like Washington DC, Military bases, anything that can compromise American security

Must be tightly regulated with government transparency and should primarily be used for criminal hotspots.

Yes but to only to identify specific suspicious peoples. They don't need to be able to identify people who don't need to be identified or aren't guilty of anything.

I believe it could be good but I really don't trust the humans that could misuse it, and AI shouldn't be anywhere near it.
It would allow the government to control people and it would allow false-identification, regardless of how 'good' it would be for crime rates.
So overall, no.

it depend on the case because some tech can't fail to recognize the person and can be hacked by other members.

People could misuse the technology, and the government could be seen as trying to control the citizens.

It should be used when needed for example, when someone is missing in that area people can check to see if that missing person has recently been there. Or is there is a criminal on the loose the same procedures can occur.

i feel that it would be safe to add that but i dont trust the technology or the people that could be put incharge of it as the could use it to their advantage.

The question of whether governments should use facial recognition for mass surveillance to enhance public safety is complex and controversial, sparking debate on privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for misuse. While proponents highlight its potential for crime prevention and security, opponents raise concerns about its impact on individual freedoms and the risk of bias and error.
Arguments for Use:
Crime Prevention:
.
Facial recognition technology can be used to identify suspects in real-time, potentially preventing crimes and apprehending criminals more efficiently.
Enhanced…  Read more Security:
.
It can be implemented in public spaces like airports and stadiums to enhance security and potentially deter terrorist attacks.
Streamlined Identity Verification:
.
Facial recognition can be used for identity verification in various contexts, such as border control and access to secure facilities.
Arguments Against Use:
Privacy Concerns:
Widespread facial recognition surveillance raises serious concerns about the erosion of privacy and the potential for governments to track citizens' movements and activities.
Risk of Bias and Error:
Facial recognition systems are known to have higher error rates for certain demographic groups, particularly women and people of color, leading to potential misidentification and wrongful arrests.
Abuse of Power:
There is a risk that facial recognition technology could be used to suppress dissent, target political opponents, or discriminate against minority groups.
Lack of Regulation:
The current lack of comprehensive federal laws and regulations regarding facial recognition use raises concerns about accountability and transparency.
Ethical Considerations:
Balancing Security and Privacy:
.
The use of facial recognition technology requires a careful balance between enhancing public safety and protecting individual privacy and civil liberties.
Transparency and Oversight:
.
Clear guidelines, robust oversight mechanisms, and public consultation are essential to en

Only if the government can figure out a way to use technology such as without hindering the privacy of the public

Both yes and no. Though it may seem too extreme, it is somewhat dangerous for the government to have so much control over its citizens.

I feel that it wouldnt necessarily help because the technology we have today can help people change their appearance

Yes and no since yes, it would enhance public safety, but the government would have more public information.

Yes, but only for people with criminal records Yes, but the technology can only be authorized for investigative purposes

YES, but only if its tiightly regulated. the only thing that worries me is the people who use it. People could get trafficked.