Does mass facial recognition technology worry you?

State governments have agreed to share biometric data, featured on identity documents such as drivers’ licences, as part of a national database.

The technology means the data can be automatically matched with that collected from devices located in airports, bus and train stations, retail malls, court buildings, prisons, sports facilities and anywhere else that has a networked camera.

An SMS survey by Roy Morgan Research showed Greens supporters (59 per cent) were more concerned about mass facial recognition technology than Labor supporters (33.5 per cent) or LNP supporters (19 per cent).

Analysis by gender shows little difference in the attitudes between women and men on the subject, while on an age basis, 45 per cent of those aged between 18 and 24 were more likely to be concerned than older people (19 per cent of those aged 65 and over).

But the technology has been criticised as costly and may give us a false sense of security against terrorism. Other people argue we will not know which officials will be accessing the data and what safeguards will be put in place to prevent misuse.

Does mass facial recognition technology worry you?

Comments   7 Comments

Hi Anon 14/10. The definition of a ‘moonbat’ is in fact ‘a person with extreme left wing political views’. The definition of a ‘fringe dweller’ is in fact a person on the outside of mainstream society - quite fitting descriptives for a very dangerous element of our society and therefore not ‘name calling’ as you incorrectly assert. Go figure.

PS: I never used the term ‘bleeding hearts’ as the connotation with the points I raised is quite wrong.

I hope this technology will help keep us safer and save lives. That’s the only possible reason to allow it. Those with concerns about how this develops are not moonbats and fringe dwellers, or bleeding hearts. Name-calling is immature. They are concerned Australians with an interest in their security, but also their rights and government accountability. There are legitimate concerns about how facial recognition technologies will be used and the government’s “assurances” don’t inspire much confidence. There hasn’t been anything clear about any limits or judicial oversight, apart from the usual clichés not to worry, we are responsible, no need to look etc. Given Turnbull’s record of caving in to the Abbott faction in his party, you don’t have to be a moonbat to wonder where this could lead. The real moonbats are more likely those who accept this two-faced government at face value.

Nup, it will not worry me. Que Sera, Sera – but I always wonder whether the technology will separate my good looks from that of my twin, or even more bizarrely from my twin brothers. There is however an obvious distinguishing feature the technology will pick up on!

It does not surprise me from the statistics quoted that the moonbats and society’s fringe dwellers, notably the Greens, have an issue with such technology. I guess this also flows through to the more radical left of Labor as well, especially the Union dominated sectors associated with criminality, like CFMEU and the MUA, just to mention 2.

Facial recognition biometrics are captured at several official points including at airports, on new tablets, phones and computers. As a part of the general security network it has merit and given the rules surrounding formal biometrics capture, storage and disposal, this technology does not pose any additional risk where the information is captured anyway. It's the 21st Century.

I’m not sure how accurate it is going to be because there is a reasonable margin of error with facial recognition technology as it currently works, but I don’t have a problem with it in principle. Overseas travellers going through smart gates at airports have been using it for some time. It’s only common sense that law enforcement agencies will use the most up-to-date technology available to them. BG.

It will be limited to those photos already on file as well as new ones added as people get a passport or a drivers licence. It will not pick-up others unless they are purposefully added. Known naughty people from those despicable places should also be added so they might be recognised as they arrive at a port or airport. So I have already advocated change that I believe to be in our best interests. Got nothing to hide then it won't affect you. I do note there may be a small percentage of error and as long as that can be reasonably resolved then let it rip.

I am not an expert at all in this area but what I hear is all that is intended is to enable quicker near real time assessment of what we currently have. Believe it or not but mass facial recognition is out there and being used daily. Anyone with a modern digital camera has that capability in their hands. Turnbull made a real mess of it's launch.

It's what might happen later that we should be concerned about. How will laws change in future. I can't answer that. But what I can say is that as it is now possible in slow time those changes would have occurred anyway. So get over it bleeding hearts.


Featured Article