Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsNational securityStarted 10mos agoActive 2mos ago

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

Facial recognition technology uses software to identify individuals based on their facial features, and can be used to monitor public spaces and enhance security measures. Proponents argue that it enhances public safety by identifying and preventing potential threats, and helps in locating missing persons and criminals. Opponents argue that it infringes on privacy rights, can lead to misuse and discrimination, and raises significant ethical and civil liberties concerns.

19 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10mos10MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10mos10MO

No

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

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

 @9Q8YR69 from Maine  answered…8mos8MO

Yes, but only in public spaces and only be used for evidence.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

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

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

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

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, but only targeting criminal hotspots to protect vulnerable communities

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

Who should be held responsible if facial recognition technology is used to discriminate or unfairly target individuals?

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, this would be too expensive to implement

 @B295LZXChristian Valuesanswered…2mos2MO

No.Privacy must be protected, and trust in God’s protection is key.(Psalm 139:1-4, Matthew 7:12)

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

Do you think facial recognition could make your community safer, or would it just make you feel more controlled?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

How would you feel if every time you walked into a public place, your face was instantly recognized and logged?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

Can you imagine a situation where facial recognition might help you in a positive way, and if so, what would that scenario look like?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

Do you believe there should be limits on when and where technology like this is used, and if so, what should those limits be?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

How would you respond if someone else benefited from facial recognition, but it violated your own privacy or values?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

In a world where every public camera could recognize you, do you feel more secure or more vulnerable?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

What might be the impact of facial recognition technology on people who are unfairly treated or targeted in society?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

If facial recognition could prevent crimes but also gathered information on innocent people, would that be an acceptable trade-off?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

How do you balance the need for safety with the risk of compromising personal freedom if such technology becomes widespread?

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies