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

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

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

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

Yes, In certain high-risk situations or extremely high populated events but not in normal everyday life/activities

Yes - Provided it is only used for individuals who are wanted by law enforcement and data for any other individuals is not kept.

As long as it's only for that and not being used an an invasion of privacy. For example, use it to locate missing persons or wanted criminals.

Yes, if additional laws are set in place and enforced so it cannot be misused/ used for any other purposes than evidence of criminal behaviour, searching for wanted criminals, searching for missing persons. Etc.

It could get hacked and it might not recognise the differences between twins or people who look similar.

#1 Engaged Facial Recognition

I think it is a very good thing if used correctly, ie... identifying criminals, identifying missing people.

Yes, but only at major events or important national security interest sites. All data that doesn’t match someone on a watchlist must be deleted after the event is concluded safely or 48hours (whichever is sooner)

I think it’s not a good idea for the government to use facial recognition. That’s too much of an invasion of privacy thing and it makes people feel scared of living and fearful the government is watching them.

Don’t spend money on that. Invest it into the police so they can stop the crime before it happens, just get more officers to patrol

Personally I think it'd be a wasted effort with how fast technology is evolving, meaning that the facial recognition tech could be hacked.

To be fair, I believe that this is hard to answer as most people (including me) would not be happy with their faces being monitored constantly but on the other hand, it would indeed be incredibly useful to capture criminals and the like.

Yes but only when proven to work 99.999% of the time or higher as right now it is inherently racist due to the samples used

Only for known and dangerous criminals, but it isnt public info and is only used when a crime has been committed

Yes, if it was used for good such as to improve the successful identification of sexual assaulters or prove someone's innocence if accused wrongly.

yes the government should use facial recognition technology for mass surveillance as long as there are backup measures if something goes wrong

Yes, if a crime has been committed in a certain area. But this practice should be restricted and made sure that it works properly so that innocent people are not falsely accused’s due to errors in technology.

It depends how they wish to do it and weather it would be used in a controlling manner/an invasion of privacy or not.

Yes, but only if it is used to solve crimes and monitor instances of anti-social behaviour. Being under surveillance 24/7 is not in anyone’s best interests.

You could give those with criminal/dangerous history some form of tag or recognition marker so they are highlighted on CCTV. Most criminals committing despicable acts will not have their faces visible, nor would you be able to enforce CCTV in households.

No, security systems must be completely independent from an overarching system, and mass facial data collection should be aggressively discouraged.

Yes as long as the data is not being withheld by government access so that people can still get privacy but facial recognition can be used to catch criminals if needed

Only if it is GENUINELY for public safety, however I would doubt the government's sincerity if they gave such an excuse to the public.

Yes, but only for the interests of high level, national security instances, not because Joe Bloggs hasn’t paid his tv licence

The government should know everyone's whereabouts at all times, including cameras in homes and even bathrooms.

Yes for safety because crime rates could drop with people knowing that there are cameras watching there every move but no because some of the public will not like the idea that someone is always watching them, like a stalker with facial recognition, and if a harmful person with negative intent got a hold of the camera feed then they could find people and potentially cause harm on them or others.

The police should be able to use this technology, but there should be strict safeguards in place to ensure that this can't be in any way abused by a government.

Should only be used if they re are significant controls preventing infringements on civilian rights such as profiling

If the person has a criminal conviction and or is on an offenders list, they should be monitored via facial recognition technology to ensure to repeat offences

No, as there are potential flaws in facial recognition technology that needs to be worked out beforehand.

I think you should only be used to monitor criminals and repeat offenders who are on parole or out of prison. I think the general public deserves privacy. It should be used similarly to the DNA database that you are put into when you commit a criminal offence.

Again it all is dependent on how its used correctly but also in terms of how are they using this how is this actually going to help find suspected terrorists and stop them as it clearly fundamentally hasn't be working so far given the major attacks that have been allowed too happen.

yes, but restricted and controlled and ensuring data protection and privacy of law abiding citizens.

Yes I agree with this in areas where there is great public risk and at times of high risk. Not for general crowd monitoring

In a fair a non bias system I feel like everyone should be able to vote on Ai laws and its uses like brexit

for the publics privacy it should not log who has been where at what time, how ever if a certain person needed to be identified it would be useful

Would be good to locate people doing wring and crines but would be miss used for data and control for general public so yes if used correctly but no as it probably will not be used ethically

Yes however I fear as if this technology could reduce the privacy of individuals, so it must be regulated in some regard

It should flag people on crimical records I don’t think people without who are seen to be law abiding citizens should have their profiles available for anyone to see.

YEs but make sure to ask everyone in the country for consent but make it more yes because then it improves public safety.

Yes but only if the data will be strictly controlled and not used for other purposes or sold to third parties

Surveillance is an almighty power to have, how to we check it isn't being abused by those with the power to wield it?

Yes, but only in completely public areas and where it is very clearly labelled that the area is using that technology, with some way to be able to disregard people without a criminal record or resemblance to whoever the system is searching for.

Depends on how much it will be used - there will be a lack of privacy for many though public safety is important.

Yes, though with exemptions. It should only be in used public areas and not utilising private property (e.g. phones or laptop web cameras); this should not be used in moral disputes, such as tracking down protestors unless they have inflicted violence; and this should not be abused for small petty crimes (e.g. littering or jaywalking).

Facial recognition technology should be used in certain cases where, for example, a crime is involved - similar to CCTV.

Surveillance only tracks or searches for criminals and does not record the movement of general public.

In theory this is great but our government abuses the human right to privacy so often that i feel more bad would come than good

I think it’s okay if someone goes missing it and that it would definitely be useful in some instances but it would need to be heavily regulated.

Some what as long as it is closely monitored and doesn’t in fringe on human rights like maybe only use it for missing person or criminals on the run

Yes but with an independant corporate body controlling the cameras and strict data access laws in place

Technology is a reflection of society and everything can be used for good and bad. I would need to understand the pros and cons properly to make a decision

No, not currently as this technology is not advanced enough yet and has led to people being falsely accused in other countries, usually black people as the tech is usually developed and tested using white male faces.

In specialist situations when they have specific intelligence of an imminent terrorist situation. Or to track known terrorists.

The government should use facial recognition technology only for people who committed two or more crimes against the country and people, to enhance public safety.

Yes, but only if there is a just reason to use it. It should be used if tracking criminals etc but not just for easy use

MASS is a big word. I'm all for surveillance cameras with facial recognition, but it should be the police that use it, not the government.

No, this should be seen as a privacy breach - it should only be done if it is processed through the court, similar to how we arrest suspected criminals, or search their homes.

Yes - but it should only be used to identify criminals or look for missing people. This should not intrude on the public’s privacy

I'm on the fence with this one as the government will abuse this right to use it for other means. Also, what does that mean for the global majority across society?

fix the ai first to remove biases and refine it to increase accuracy to a point that misidentification would be rare

Yes only if it used for good causes such as to find people who are wanted by the police or for people who have gone missing ect

Yes what do we have to hide surveillance done in cities could mean the difference between our soldiers sons and daughters being put in harms way

Yes, but only to recognise criminals, terrorists and missing persons - not the general public going about their daily lives.

no as the recognition technology may not be up to standard, which could lead to accidents in the future.

Yes, it can help the police find criminals they have been looking for for a while. But the facial recognition is not completely reliable as it could get the wrong person.

It troubles me as to how the government, foreign entities and corporations can and will use this technology in nefarious ways that will not improve our safety but instead lead us blindly into an authoritarian state that will erode our rights. There is Zero regulation and so open to corruption. I need a more compelling argument for it's use and what ways it will be regulated to protect against misuse.

Yes, However, surveillance should be limited to public areas, and only for; Identifying known criminals/ Individuals directly accused of a crime/ Missing person/s, avoiding infringement on privacy.

Yes but only if it had a super majority and was operated by an impartial programme and is not seen people unless a crime has been committed

If there’s a person of interest suspected of committing a heinous crime either here or abroad and is known or suspected of being in a particular region then yes. But definitely not routinely used.

Yes because it identifies you as a person and allows to find missing people. No because of discrimination

Yes, but only if the individual also can use it freely to defend or attack an abuse for police and court.

All tech can be hacked or used dubiously and also aren’t we already doing this? Will a police state make us safer?

not in a mass sense, however if it were introduce as part of a new regulatory investigation powers act bill,. with limits on it's use to stop a communism style surveillance system. For example, using it to identify an offender at Piccadilly circus

Facial recognition should only be used in the most necessary of situations like catching a criminal or preventing a crime.

If you've got nothing to hide, why would it bother you? Not keen personally but I can see the argument for it.

Yes, where there is substantial reason to suggest there is a risk factor and only for a specified period approved by a local body.