Should police be permitted to use facial recognition technology in PUBLIC spaces to identify & locate individuals?

[DrPepper12]

Yes. ALL "people of interest" to cops. EVERYONE!

Yes. Felons/bail jumpers/probation ONLY

Yes. ALL above including MISDEMEANORS

Yes. ALL above including unpaid fines/taxes/child support.

No. It's creepy AF

Depends. Once ID'd & located then what?

My take...

[AviatorTom]

A person in a public space has no expectation of privacy, so using facial recognition is fine. What's not fine is what may be done with the results of the facial recognition. Locating a person of interest is fine, but following a person without probable cause is a violation of several laws.

[AviatorTom]

Thanks for MHO

[msc545]

Sure. Let them do anything. They want. The law no longer makes any difference since there's nobody around to enforce it, particularly against police.

[OneViewpoint]

Funny how the Reich Wing fascists hate "big govamint" but support this intrusion into every innocuous moment of people's lives. In true conservative brain fashion they cannot connect the dots to themselves.

"The govamint is gonna catch all the bad guys. This technology would never be used to target good people like me".

Yeah, right! The tech is never gonna screw up and decide you're a Palestinian terrorist or a serial killer or an escaped prisoner.

[Gwendoline]

Absolutely. For instance there was a Chinese immigrant in Australia who after finding out he was getting deported threw hot coffee over an Australian child in a park b4 fleeing. Police were reluctant to release details of who he was or his ethnicity and the man was able to flee to China. I'm thinking facial recognition software would have stopped him at the airport. That's one example.

[msc545]

Do you think that if they had caught him that would have somehow made the child better?

[Gwendoline]

@msc545 do you not believe in justice? Do you not think that if there is no consequences for maiming a child for life that more people will feel obliged to do so? We had a problem in Britain with acid attacks on women. Should perpetrators be free to throw scalding liquid or acid on whoever they want?

[msc545]

I don't think that punishing people stops other people from doing the same thing if they are intent on doing it

[Gwendoline]

@msc545 so why have laws at all? Often people will do the most horrendous things usually out of greed only because legally there are no consequences such as jailtime.

[msc545]

We have laws in order to avoid having lynch mobs. Until recently, that usually worked.

[Gwendoline]

@msc545 no we have laws to stop the majority of people doing whatever they want consequence free like you see in places like Haitai, Somalia etc. Whenever laws aren't enforced like shoplifting laws in some US cities, we see a massive rise in shoplifting and shops being forced to close, makes sense that if a person can walk out of a store with as much as they can carry without fear of being stopped, arrested or jailed why would they not do that?

[msc545]

It might be that to some extent laws deter people, but those that are intent on committing crimes do it anyway - like Trump and Republicans in general these days.

[Gwendoline]

@msc545 people who committ crimes usually do it because they think they will get away with and have likely done it before multiple times and gotten away with it. Its kind of like P Diddy, Bill Cosby, R Kelly etc. They committed multiple sex crimes and never believed they would actually be brought to justice. Now imagine a CEO who knowingly steals all the water from a town in california creating a drought, its morally wrong but because its legal and there's no chance of criminal or legal consequences that ceo does it in a heartbeat

[Anonymous]

I have mixed feelings on this. While I understand that you have no expectation of privacy in public spaces, this is just a little too much like a police state to me.

[DrPepper12]

Agreed. It's legal but very uncomfortable

[WindAtMyBack]

Hell no!

When I was young I read plenty of dystopian books and short stories about such evil things.

Big brother is watching in more ways than one. And none of them are good.

[Anonymous]

There is no right to privacy in a public place. I've been screaming about facial recognition for years and no one listens.

The next innovation is going to be facial recognition on smart phones, where you point your phone at someone and it gives you their name, address, social security number, credit report, anything you want. The legislation to protect against this kind of thing will be years later. It's a huge threat, especially to women.

[Sachem]

There are many cases of mistaken identity and these have led to serious consequences. I shuddered to think about innocents caught up in vigilante actions. This is FAR too dangerous.

[Spencer10]

Its just one more step towards a police state. This tech can easily be corrupted and miss used. Privacy is an illusion.

[onedarkcloud]

Next they will want it in your bedroom, bathroom just in case they are not positive that the field cameras are not correct it is only the beginning

[exitseven]

Yes, we have this technology. Th cops need all the help they can get.

[CaptainSmartass]

Fuck no! Last time I checked, this wasn't East Germany.

Simples...

[beefcakebradybatson]

Let me see... They'll be doing it to entrap POC.

[Staximus]

Only for dangerous violent idiots who belong in a cage because they can't control themselves

[WonderingManII]

No. It's creepy AF

[blackeagle007]

Agreed. Cops already are annoying fucks as is.

[WonderingManII]

@blackeagle007 There is a good side to using technology to capture bad people, but that same technology can be used in the wrong way too. Not all cops are good.

[blackeagle007]

Plus qualified immunity needs to go

[Anonymous]

Wait. We are allowed opinions still?

[Sal_Monella]

Feds already do but it should be regulated.

[Likes2drive]

Probably for felons, yeah

[Fanfare690]

They do?

[Pohjolan]

In some countries. One Russian war criminal got caught that way already.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Nope.