@ISIDEWITHQuestionsNational securityStarted 7mos agoActive 6 days 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 x  Independents

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 438 Independents voters.

44%
Yes
56%
No
37%
Yes
51%
No
6%
Yes, but only if it’s tightly regulated and used with transparency
3%
No, it sets a dangerous precedent for government control over citizens
1%
Yes, but only targeting criminal hotspots to protect vulnerable communities
1%
No, I trust the technology but not the humans that could misuse it
0%
No, this would be too expensive to implement

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 438 Independents voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 438 Independents voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

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

 @B262NSJfrom Ontario  answered…6 days6D

No, this would be too expensive to implement and if humans get older, the face recognition might not work.

 @9NGVW5Nfrom British Columbia  answered…7mos7MO

The seems like it would turn into a privacy thing where everyone would end up having their privacy violated

 @9MV4GBFfrom Ontario  answered…7mos7MO

I think they should do it but only for criminal detection software, like if someone commited a crime in the past, their face should be added to a list for detection and reconnasenice for criminal behavior

 @9MSXW7Rfrom Ontario  answered…7mos7MO

Yes, as long as the private information of the public should stay private

 @9XPF7TCanswered…2mos2MO

As long as the system can only recognize the faces of wanted criminals or missing persons and doesn't collect any facial data.

 @9WGXHQLfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

They should accuse facial recognition for the roads where the lights are but they shouldn't have that if there's no lights and there's just houses.

 @9W9YG5Kfrom Nova Scotia  answered…2mos2MO

No, and legislate a law that disallows using facial recognition for mass surveillance, as this violates everyone's privacy.

 @9VSPPZLfrom Saskatchewan  answered…3mos3MO

like ai this should only be used in goverment facilities and (if the business allows it) businesses around the world.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most 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 13hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

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