Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHAnswersNational securityStarted 2yrs agoActive 5mos ago

Yes, but only if it’s tightly regulated and used with transparency

+
Expand
+ Settings

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of

@BDYZK62
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

6 Replies

 @9ZPNZ69 from Ohio  disagreed…2yrs2Y

Even with tight regulations, it is similar to a future oppressive government, and it's still an invasion of privacy of the people.

 @9ZPLCHMWomen’s Equality from Georgia  disagreed…2yrs2Y

Even with regulation, facial recognition poses privacy risks and can be misused. It may lead to mass surveillance, discrimination, and false identifications, and could be exploited beyond its intended use.

 @B8C96JX from New York  agreed…8mos8MO

To be frank, everything comes with risks, and there will always be a 'what if'. I believe humans are constantly in a state of paranoia, and this can either help or worsen those concerns.

 @B9TRY8Rfrom Guam  agreed…5mos5MO

What I mean by regulated and used with transparency is that only a specific department that is made to specifically monitor the facial recognition system can watch it and no cooperate or any non governmental entity can watch it

 @B8RB7MT from Georgia  agreed…7mos7MO

There are plenty of cold cases at the local, state, and federal level that - maybe with increased facial recognition and other technologies - could be solved. While there are certainly risks and concerns involved, there are ways to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not overly controlled and protected.

 @B7QGRFT from Washington  agreed…9mos9MO

With a tightly regulated system and lots of transparency with the use, the government cannot take advantage of it and use it to harm or invade our privacy.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies