@ISIDEWITHQuestionsNational securityStarted 11mos agoActive 3wks 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.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 29.7k Canada voters.

39%
Yes
61%
No
32%
Yes
53%
No
5%
Yes, but only if it’s tightly regulated and used with transparency
4%
No, it sets a dangerous precedent for government control over citizens
2%
Yes, but only targeting criminal hotspots to protect vulnerable communities
2%
No, I trust the technology but not the humans that could misuse it
1%
No, this would be too expensive to implement

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 29.7k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 29.7k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @B27PCQLfrom Alberta  answered…4mos4MO

No, the technology is trustworthy but it sets a dangerous precedent for the government and requires too much trust as it can be misused.

 @B39DTY7from Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

This sets a dangerous precedent that can be potentially abused by corrupt officials therefore it must be tightly regulated and only used in targeting hotspots for protection of innocents

 @B38K4D7 from Washington  answered…2mos2MO

No and no. Humans misuse power, governments control/have power over citizens, citizens are being controlled by the government.

 @B49LKNYfrom Alberta  answered…3wks3W

never, you would find me taking down the cameras with my own hands, because i dont want anyone to be watching me, or anyine else. this happened in the soviet union, and we saw what happened

 @B3RXXXKfrom British Columbia  answered…1mo1MO

Facial recognition can enhance security, but mass surveillance raises serious privacy concerns. A regulated, case-by-case approach—with strict oversight and ethical guidelines—might be the best path forward.

 @B3MY9V3from Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

I'd say no, what would you do if the system fails, then your homes basically a target for criminals, I suggest sticking to the conventinal lock design where you use a key to enter.

 @B3HJK9Rfrom Manitoba  answered…2mos2MO

No, facial recognition and profiling technologies have already been shown to be unreliable by being prone to false positives and biased if trained by a human (biggest example is racial profiling). As well, the potential for misuse should be considered.

 @B3DKZ6Sfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but they should consider the fact that faces can be manipulated either online(editing) or in real life(plastic surgery)

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1619 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5mos5MO

Chaos in Europe: Germany’s Government Collapses As Trump Returns

Germany’s coalition government collapsed on Wednesday after Chancellor Olaf Scholz sacked his finance minister Christian Lindner, plunging the eurozone’s largest economy into political chaos hours after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.Scholz told reporters he would table a confidence vote in parliament on January 15, which most observers expect him to lose. That will pave the way for snap elections in March.Lindner’s sacking and the departure of his pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) from the government brings the curtain down on a deeply unpopular coalition that had become a byword for discord and acrimony.It leaves a void at the heart of Europe just as concern is growing in EU capitals over what a second Trump presidency will mean for transatlantic relations.Germany and the rest of Europe now face a long period of uncertainty they can ill-afford as they brace for a trade war with the US while trying to fend off a growing economic threat from China.In a blistering statement delivered in the chancellery, Scholz blamed Lindner for the breakdown of the government, calling him “selfish” and “irresponsible”. He said he “cared only about his own clientele and the short-term survival of his own party”.The trigger for Lindner’s dismissal was a dispute over next year’s budget. The three coalition partners — Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD), Lindner’s FDP and the Greens — could not agree on how to plug a €9bn hole in spending plans ahead of a meeting of parliament’s budget committee next week.However, the conflict became overlaid with deeper ideological divisions over how to deal with Germany’s economic downturn and how much public debt the government is legally allowed to raise.Scholz said he had asked Lindner to agree to loosen Germany’s “debt brake”, a cap on new borrowing which is enshrined in the constitution and which the SPD and Greens have long wanted to reform.That would have allowed Germany to take on more debt and so boost its support for Ukraine, at a time when fears are growing Trump might cut aid to Kyiv once installed in the White House.Scholz said he had also proposed capping network charges to bring down energy prices for industrial companies, creating incentives for businesses to invest, and passing a package of measures to safeguard jobs in the car industry, which faces more competition from China.

▲  299 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6mos6MO

Trump’s Puerto Rico Problem Erupts in Pennsylvania: Latino Voters Fire Back

Donald Trump has a serious Puerto Rico problem — in Pennsylvania.Many Puerto Rican voters in the state are furious about racist and demeaning comments delivered at a Trump rally. Some say their dismay is giving Kamala Harris a new opening to win over the state’s Latino voters, particularly nearly half a million Pennsylvanians of Puerto Rican descent.Evidence of the backlash was immediate on Monday: A nonpartisan Puerto Rican group drafted a letter urging its members to oppose Trump on election day. Other Puerto Rican voters were lighting up WhatsApp chats with reactions to the vulgar display and raising it in morning conversations at their bodegas. Some are planning to protest Trump’s rally Tuesday in Allentown, a majority-Latino city with one of the largest Puerto Rican populations in the state.And the arena Trump is speaking at is located in the middle of the city’s Puerto Rican neighborhood.“It’s spreading like wildfire through the community,” said Norberto Dominguez, a precinct captain with the local Democratic party in Allentown, who noted his own family is half Republican and half Democratic voters.“It’s not the smartest thing to do, to insult people — a large group of voters here in a swing state — and then go to their home asking for votes,” Dominguez said.The timing couldn’t be worse for Trump. Almost a week before Election Day, he’s pushing to cut into Harris’ margins among Latinos, especially young men who are worried about the economy. But the comments from pro-Trump comedian Tony Hinchcliffe Sunday night, referring to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” has reverberated throughout Pennsylvania and elsewhere, prompting even the former president’s Republican allies to defend the island and denounce the comments. And with the race essentially a toss up, every vote counts — especially in Pennsylvania.“This was just like a gift from the gods,” said Victor Martinez, an Allentown resident who owns the Spanish language radio station La Mega, noting some Puerto Rican voters in the area have been on the fence about voting at all.

▲  3116 replies