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

Yes

No, it sets a dangerous precedent for government control over citizens

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

Yes, but only targeting criminal hotspots to protect vulnerable communities

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, this would be too expensive to implement

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.

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.

HEEELLL NO! The government is not to be trusted on issues of private security, and the privacy of its people.

Yes and no. I think that this kind of technology would be extremely beneficial for catching criminals and monitoring citizens, but I also believe that it could be misused to heavily control the public.

no, that sounds absolutely dystopian and wouldn't even do anything because there is always a way around the law

yes but only allowed to store the data on foreigners, felons, or suspects of potential mass crimes. no keeping regular people’s data, no need.

Yes and not it should be blacklisted to only the president but be allowed to be used to hunt down criminals if they ever try to hide

yes but no. yes because it for everyones safty but no because some people might not care and dont like it.

I don't think they should since they could easily be hacked either way and let anyone in certain stuff but if you forget a password that's on you

Yes, but only if the faces of all private citizens are obscured or blurred after 7 years except for known terrorists or convicted violent criminals

No, because what about twins? or doppelgangers like people who look extremely similar, or people undergoing plastic surgery to look like someone there not. Or what if someone decided to do something big without telling anyone about it like dye or shave there head. Or where ALOT of makeup or no makeup.

Tightly regulated coupled with transparency And targeting to protect the vulnerable. Yet it does set a dangerous precedent. So on the fence with this one too.

new york is the governments test bed for this, and it works for catching people doing crime (you could also look at china where its more obvious 500 cameras per pole), but crime isnt everywhere, so is isnt neccessary, only neccessary thing is maybe traffic light cameras, illegal facial recognition data gathering should carry like 25 years, why? the data cant ever be deleted, as its scanned, its instantly uploaded and maybe even uploaded to a blockchain permantly

That is a invasion of peoples privacy and could be dangerous in case of a technology breach leaking information

No, this would either be useless as people can easily wear masks or have facial changes, or too heavily restrict freedom, disallowing people to wear face altering cosmetics

tightly regulated and transparent about it and only use it to target criminal activity and community’s of high risk

I think yes but it's a scary thought that the cameras can facially track us. It's already a problem that hackers can hack into normal cameras.

This is necessary only for preserved use. I don't support the discrimination of its use, and the futile accusations, and invasion of privacy when having access to all facial recognition. I don't support this if the government can access absolutely everyone, and can do it willy nilly.

Not in the current state of technology, but in the future once we've advanced to a point of great control of technology, yes.

this would be good but I think fingerprints would be best and for 2 factor authentication would be face id

If the government has it there is a chance it could be hacked or misused, also it sets a dangerous precedent for government control over citizens.

I understand both sides. It's important to scan for potential threats, but it encroaches on privacy. I guess if you made me decide, I would say yes, with some limitations and complete transparency with the public.

It should be used to help in tight security scenarios however people can take photos with different hair and even facial hair or they could get plastic surgery so it should be used however it should have a humans second opinion as well.

only in certain places like the white house or police stations or airports places that need more protection

Such technology should always have a human on standby to allow for people to cross exterminate before incrimination.

I feel like yes but only Implement it onto some people, like how you get your fingerprints taken when you go get arrested.

I don't want my face to be recognized everywhere I go and I honestly don't trust or like the government in general.

Could possibly be a slippery slope but should be tightly regulated and used with transparency but we already have mass surveillance with TTV cams this would just be a better version but should only be used in public spaces and shouldn’t be used to persecute marginalized groups for petty crime or almost any petty crime. It could make people uncomfortable but the safety of fellow Americans is more important than some people being uncomfortable.

There would be room for too many mistakes to rely on completely. I would be a good way to try to identify someone but not 100% rely on

No, only targeted individual surveillance with a warrant due to probable cause of criminal or terrorist activity

Instead of facial recognition, we should add fingerprints to the identification of citizens. That way people aren't being surveilled, but if their prints were found in a crime scene they are easily found when needed.

For me it's 50%. I would need more information on how it would be implement and where and who would be responsible before I can make a informed opinion on the matter. I can see the pros and the cons to both side of the argument.

I agree with doing this if ii is tightly regulated with being used with transparency but used only for when used for targeting criminals that are a threat to the safety of people or communities or children.

I agree with both yes and no arguments. I’m not so certain with how reliable technology itself would be which is my only concern. I do also agree that the government could become controlling over it.

Mix of "No, i trust the technology but not the humans that could misuse it" and "No, it sets a dangerous precedent for government control over citizens"

Yes, but make sure they would be another way around it for the people who created it, because even on my phone sometimes my facial recognition does not work and I cannot get into my phone or my apps and there is literally nothing I can do until my phone wants to start working. So if we did that on things in the world such as mass surveillance just make sure there is a backdoor but also security tight.

No because you can replicate a face but I think you should use fingerprints instead Becuase everyone's is different.

“Any person that would sacrifice liberty for a little freedom deserves neither.”
Public use of technology in public areas with highly regulated use in the criminal process would seem to be legal to me.
There are however many uses that federal and state agencies would be able to utilize such as phone computer mic’s, phone and computer cameras, word recognition technology that can be used to eves drop on calls. This issue has many constitutional ramifications if not done correctly and within the parameters of the bill of rights.

Yes but only in criminal cases and with transparency. If it can be controlled and not abused in a way that it can bring harm to someone and will protect privacy go ahead. It should be used only outside and never in.

no, because if the technology were to fail then you could get falsely accused. also its dangerous for the government to have that kind of power.

People should have the right to choose if they want to have their face be recognized by technology, unless they have a serious criminal record.

Technology isn't always flawless, since it's created by humans. Human misuse is a threat. Ultimately no, but it could be used as an additional surveillance check.

No that would be horrifying if someone got every pice of info on you. What if people get that tech like this and use it to their advantage

yes because what if you drop your card and someone picks it up and trys to go to the store and they use YOUR MONEY for their food. But if we add recognition we don't have to worry about it

only use it in places that need it like federal facilities so people that don't belong there can get caught.

Yes, it should be used in high-risk or high-crime areas, however due to its potential for high governmental power over citizens, it should be highly regulated, used with transparency and be managed more directly by the people and not by the government

Yes, but only for targeting criminal hotspots and protecting vulnerable communities with complete transparency but keeping in mind the government overreach when implementing

No, facial recognition technology has long been plagued with issues recognizing non-white faces. I also don't trust the possibility of misuse.

Yes, with tight regulations and transparent use in criminal hotspots with the prupose of protecting the vunerable.

No, due to studies that have shown that facial recognition technology can be biased based on the information that is fed into the system.

I feel as if one day A.I would get too advance for this method and mimicking another person would be too easy.

I don't want a big brother type of situation to happen or someone hacking it. It is a danger in general.

Technology for facial identification can be faulty along with it being used in vulnerable communities. I'm indifferent

I think only used if they are looking for a criminal but that would be like china where people feel like they have no privacy, if it had to be used i think it would have to be in scary situations like looking for a dangerous person but not for everyday things.