Try the political quiz
@B84QJ6F Agreements8mos ago

Firstly, facial recognition would help catch criminals, help reduce future crime, and help track criminals

Say if a criminal is walking down the street, facial recognition software can identify who that person is. It would show if they have any criminal background, any felonies, or past criminal history. If we were to use facial recognition software, the way that it would help reduce future crime is by scanning to see if anything or anyone near has a bad history. If they do, they could keep an eye on them just in case. Lastly, it could be used to track criminals by scanning all the cameras around and seeing if the person has been identified in any photos or videos.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about National security?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

7 Replies

 @B89KC5RIndependent from California  disagreed…8mos8MO

No technology is flawless. Criminals can always find loopholes to evade surveillance. On the other hand, facial recognition grants excessive power to our government over the public, which poses a risk of authoritarianism.

 @B8B4XL8Democrat from Illinois  disagreed…8mos8MO

This usage of facial recognition would cripple the possibility of rehabilitation for criminals. When past criminals are identified and tracked everywhere they go, it's nearly impossible for them to properly reintegrate into society. On top of harming privacy for everyone, it would also be incredibly easy to circumvent for bad actors. A simple mask or hood would be all it takes to counter this futuristic technology. While it may be a useful idea in theory, facial recognition would come at a massive cost for very little gain.

 @B89SVGQ from Connecticut  disagreed…8mos8MO

if someone is not actively commiting a crime or have very good probably cause of committing a crime, then this will be a large violation of privacy

 @B89KX52 from California  disagreed…8mos8MO

Facial recognition can be easily rolled out to catch criminals but often times personal information is misused by the government for other motives. This, applying to facial recognition could be very detrimental to the public if misused.

 @B88VRNRNo Labels from Wisconsin  disagreed…8mos8MO

I personally do not agree with this, because I believe that we should have our own privacy as Americans. Law enforcement is a thing for a reason, so they can catch criminals that way. I believe that putting surveillance cameras for the GOVERNMENT to monitor, and I don't think that that's ok.

 @B8B7BGL from Texas  disagreed…8mos8MO

it would help control the mass of people which means you can't run or hide when the government comes for you

 @B89KPBH from Texas  disagreed…8mos8MO

I think keeping personal data recognition files on all US citizens is a blatant privacy violation and could be used for much more malicious purposes.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this agreement.

@B84QJ6F

Last activeActivity2 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias51%Active in
Counter Arguments  1 Disagreements  1 Agreements  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

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