Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestions3mos ago

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

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Province/Territory:

31 Replies

 @9TXW8PLanswered…3mos3MO

I feel like it would be more authoritarian or more controlling

 @9TXFQCY from Pennsylvania  answered…3mos3MO

No I'd feel more at risk of being abused by a tyrannical government

 @9TX52F7New Democraticfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

Way too much overreach. The use of this software can be beneficial, however as a "monitoring" tool to prevent "crime" as it happens, it would be very damaging to communities and be used unethically and for the gain of those in power

 @9TX39QZfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

Facial recognition helps police quickly identify suspects by scanning faces in real-time or analyzing camera footage, aiding in crime prevention and locating missing persons or known criminals.

 @9TX2T7RGreenfrom Quebec  answered…3mos3MO

No. It is still very much a racist and ablelist practice.

 @9TWHXYPConservative from Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

Because facial recognition technology helps law enforcement identify suspects and deter crime, it has the potential to improve community safety. It also brings up serious issues with surveillance, privacy, and the possibility of exploitation or biased application. A lot of individuals might experience a greater sense of control or surveillance, which would stifle freedom of speech and mobility. Regulations would be required to ensure responsible use, and striking a balance between safety and civil freedoms is imperative. Do you want to learn more about this subject?

 @9TTFZM4New Democraticfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

Same rules apply.

Malicious/violent crime only.

If your camera sees someone stealing food? Mind your own business...

 @9TSVBD6from Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

More controlled. I would also have serious concerns about privacy.

 @9TSQNDVLiberal from British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

It would make us more controlled as we would be watched 24/7 and only people with a record should be watched

 @9TRY8FJPeople’sfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

More controlled -- China uses it to repress and terrorise its citizens.

 @9TQWX6J from Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

in theory yes, however giving one entity the power to track the population will result in something closer to 1984 than utopia

 @9TP73Q7from Alberta  answered…3mos3MO

Facial recognition is a good idea because it would ultimately lead to a safer country.

 @9TNXQSYConservativefrom Alberta  answered…3mos3MO

only if it's used to find criminals but it shouldn't be manditory

 @9TNKJ9Hfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

I believe facial recognition would cause a sense of discomfort within the community, and that it is not a necessary tool to combat crime. Given Canada's crime rates are low overall and current rises are associated with repeat offenders, facial recognition would do little good preventing crime either way. I'm not fundamentally against it, but we have better tools in our toolbox and we should exhaust those options first.

 @9TNBDV8from British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

It would make me feel uncomfortable and controlled.

 @9TN6ZYVfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

No, feel more controlled and unlikely to provide any feeling of being safer.

 @9V7JKNPfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

I think it would make everyone feel more controlled.

 @9V6NDKSfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

It would make me feel more controlled, and that my community doesn't trust anything

 @9V6GWLM from Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

I think that it goes both ways. It would increase security and would be beneficial, but, some people won't feel safe. There has to be a higher level of trust between the people and the government.

 @9V5GB5RConservativefrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

I would feel more controlled and this should not be regulated, this would make it feel communist.

 @9V4HW8Mfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

I think it would just make us feel more controlled if anything.

 @9V4BD7Bfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

It wouldn’t make me feel safer because with AI, people can create other people’s faces and go through recognition without it being the real
person.

 @9V28522New Democraticfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

No, I feel as if we had facial recognition I would feel more controlled like robots. Instead we can continue to use ID's.

 @9V27SQHfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

The Facial Recognition carries pros about the countries security. People can easily identify to use of the governmental facilities. Moreover, government can get a report of their citizens and manage the system.

 @9V27Y74from British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

I would feel more controlled because we are not robots and do not need facial recognition. We can use other ways to identify others such as Ids, passports, drivers license etc.

 @9V27M2Lfrom British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

It would feel more controlled in a way that I know that I could have a shift in a day if a certain situation happens.

 @9TYX257from British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

It highly depends on the context of facial recognition as it could be abused

 @9TYRR36from British Columbia  answered…3mos3MO

I feel like it would make me feel more controlled and vulnerable.
and on top of that feeling uncomfortable

 @6WBMZK3  from California  answered…3mos3MO

It depends what it’s used for but I’d be skeptical in general.

 @9TY279Wfrom New Brunswick  answered…3mos3MO

I feel on the fence about it. I think it could be safer, but I think if not regulated properly it could be used against people for the wrong reasons.

 @9TXWNMDfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

I feel like it could have pros and cons, and the government should be very open about what they do with the technology.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 24hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…7 days7D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree