Jo, living in a modern society involves rights and obligations. We are required to pay taxes in order to enable the state to provide for those less well off in society. We are also entitled to various benefits such as welfare, should we need it.

It is entirely reasonable that those seeking access to the benefits of a modern society should be required to identify themselves. And in fact, most of us identify ourselves to others perhaps several times each day. When we go to the bank, apply for a drivers licence, gun license etc.

My impression is that the only people playing the civil liberties card in an effort to frustrate the ability of authorities to easily identify them are those who have something to hide.

If you concern is that facial recognition technology might prove unreliable, then why not support a better alternative. Such as an Australia Card.

The Immigration department is already using facial recognition software. The last time I came back into Australia, instead of lining up with a couple of hundred others, all I had to do was put my new passport into a machine with my photo showing, stand on the appropriate spot while my photo was taken. After a brief period while the computer checked that I was the correct person, the gate opened and I was let through. There was nothing covert about it.

In Monarco, they have been using facial recognition software for several years to keep tags on undesirables.

It seems to me, that if you have nothing to hide, it should not be a problem. Just keep a diary of where you have been, in case the system has glitches.

David

Dear Herbert,

"It is entirely reasonable that those seeking access to the benefits of a modern society should be required to identify themselves."

I agree, but what about those who are not seeking such benefits?

As it becomes apparent that there is no free lunch, more people will finally get to doubt the overall benefit of a "modern" lifestyle.

"My impression is that the only people playing the civil liberties card in an effort to frustrate the ability of authorities to easily identify them are those who have something to hide."

-Indeed, with current technology, were the Nazis come to power again it would be much more difficult to hide Jews in double-walls.

Facial recognition technology: Big brother's ultimate weapon against civil liberties :
Without even reading this article I'm inclined to say that facial recognition should be seen as the ultimate weapon FOR civil liberties.

That's a bit of a reach, don't you think, Yuyutsu? That we should avoid facial recognition in case of Nazis? I think, in this day and age, organisations such as the National Socialist Party would number among those who 'have something to hide'. If they slipped under the radar and assumed power or, heaven forbid, if they were voted into power in free and open elections ... well, that would be a surprise.

The reality is that the software and hardware needed for facial recognition is being developed and will continue to be developed whether it is applied or not. If we are too precious to accept it in our society, we can't expect malevolent dictatorships to have the same reluctance to use technology. If we do accept it, we can learn to live with it, learn to work our way around it and see the benefits as well as the disadvantages.

I, for one, have nothing to hide - plenty that I don't want all my friends knowing about, but (like most Australians) few or no friends who are likely to view footage and identify me along with my groceries, my fuel consumption, my outings to the beach ... and people who don't know me are unlikely to care too much what I do.

Not a very useful article. Yes facial recognition is getting better. In a decade or two's time it is going to be very good indeed, literally allowing a 3D photo to be near solid for individual recognition as a DNA.

So now what? The article is silent. It's like running up to a house in the recent Brisbane floods, watching the inevitably of the creeping water submerging the house, and running around hysterically saying "your house is going to be flooded". It doesn't help. Yes, the house will be submerged, but life will go on. You can't resist some aspects of the tide of change, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of things you can usefully do.

This article hints at none of them. It reads like alarmist journalism, written to attract page hits.

That's a bit of a reach, don't you think, Otokonoko? That the government must always be on the side of the good-guys?

Nazis were of course just one example, I could go on and on citing others: of course history does not repeat itself exactly, but it is paved with cases of abuse of power by authorities.

Even if there is nothing current that limits your freedoms, given their absolute powers, the authorities could at any time make and enforce immoral new legislation, and if that happened to be against your most cherished personal principles, then with the added technology you would be more likely to find yourself behind bars.

Now there happens to be one current piece of immoral legislation, so lets take it for example (and please bear in mind it's just an example) - I refer to the mandatory detention of refugees arriving by boat:

Suppose you were hiding refugees at large in your cellar out of compassion (I can safely write this because in case the government tracked my posts here, they would soon find that I have no cellar...). Assume they are genuine refugees, but the thought of incarceration was just so terrifying that they escaped, or suppose they managed to avoid the authorities and you picked them directly from their boat. Obviously this is a case where you are the good guy and the government are the villains. The more technology at their disposal, the more likely they are to incarcerate both you and your refugees.

You claim that you have nothing to hide - fair enough, YOU happen to have nothing to hide, but through your disclosures you make it easier for the authorities to find the odd one out. By creating a smoke-screen and not showing your cards (such as in the Nazi example if everyone was wearing the yellow badge which Jews were required to wear), you can help those true heroes who fight for justice and good against evil regimes.

I don't think the government must always be on the side of the good guys. However, opposing security technologies is opposing its use on those occasions when government IS on the side of the good guys as well as when it is not.

Your example is all well and good. However, for every person who breaks the law for humanitarian reasons, there are many more who break the law to the detriment of society. So that you can't be identified hiding refugees, you would ask that bank robbers, date rapists, vandals, burglars, con artists and other undesirables evade capture when facial recognition technology may allow otherwise?

This is indeed a serious moral dilemma, Otokonoko, similar to the "Runaway train" scenario (http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman):

Is it right to kill one innocent person for the sake of saving 100 other lives? My answer is 'No'.

I would add that one's primary responsibility is to abstain from doing evil, rather than to make sure that others abstain. I agree that there are exceptional cases when killing another is not evil, but that requires the killer to be extremely pure and devoid of personal interests in the result of their action (death of another). That however cannot probably be said for any government in the last 1000 years.

Reducing the scale from "killing" to "incarcerating" does not change the principle. moreover so given that innocent/good/normative people tend to suffer much more in jail than hard-core criminals.

I could however support the use of facial-recognition technology, weighing it against my former case, if it were shown that it reduces the rates of incarceration of innocent people.

There is no doubt with the flase flag events of 911,that big brother of Orwellian dimenions is a reality.

So what are our feeble minded Hollywood worshippers of image over substanace going to do? Rise to the challenge of freedom and democracy or apologise to their masters for even having the temerity to question their authority.

Jo, I would suggest that all your misgivings about the ever-improving technologies available to law-enforcement agencies these days, would fade away if you or someone close to you was severely injured, or worse, as a result of crime.

Indeed, we would all welcome whatever technology was available to bring someone to justice if we were personally involved with the case.

I say the more new technologies available to make our world a safer place, the better.

Had to happen. The need for facial mapping - facial recognition - biometrics was a major issue in the robbery trial of Mundarra Smith. Police gave evidence they recognised him from bank footage, but their evidence was excluded as they had no formal qualifications in these fields. This is just technology trying to keep up with the law.

If you have misgivings about facial recognition technology, the weapons and communications technology now being used in Afghanistan will simply terrify you.

Communications by thought transfer without voice or machine, weapons activated by the mind ... to name two.

Roll up solar panels which still opetate in partial shade and with bullet holes.
Silent minature wind turbines.

We are a tad behind the times.

As long as they hire appropriately IQ'd people using the systems.

Recent US domestic airport check in conversation between customer and staff.

Staff: May I have your ticket please sir?

Aussie: It's an eticket, here's my passport.

Staff: Sir, you cannot board this flight without producing a ticket.

Aussie: It's an eticket, my details on your system will match my passport details if you could check please.

Staff: Sir if you cannot produce a ticket you cannot board this flight!

Aussie: I have the email for the eticket on my laptop if that would help.

Staff: SIR YOU HAVE A BAD ATTITUDE! DO NOT OPEN THAT LAPTOP! SECURITY! SECURITY!

And a more recent conversation...

Staff: May I have your ticket please sir?

Aussie: It's an eticket, here's my passport.

Staff: Thankyou ....hey why aren't you a black man?

Aussie: Pardon? ...I'm white....

Staff: I can see that! Sheeesh! You know you should really stop armed robbery OK??

Aussie: Ok.

Staff: Michael Jackson didn't really look black either.

Maybe someone can come up with a theory that the smarter the software and systems, the dumber and cheaper the operator...

Neutral

all you are showing is that some employees are redneck dumbo's.

Every employer has known that ... for years.

@suzeonline: Jo, I would suggest that all your misgivings about the ever-improving technologies available to law-enforcement agencies these days, would fade away if you or someone close to you was severely injured, or worse, as a result of crime.

Maybe, if we could all be assured it was going to be used to assure your safety. Of course it won't be.

For example, the police initially loved the idea of automatic number plate recognition, right up until people started doing it from private cars and posted the position of every police vehicle on a web site.

So you love the idea of camera's in shops? What I once tested out a theory I had using those cameras. I put one camera on the toilet doors, and another on the sink. I though it might be able to tell which customers washed their hands after going to the loo - without their knowledge of course. It worked, but I was so taken aback by what I had achieved I stopped doing it.

In Japan they appear to have no such inhibitions. They blanket the store with camera, and monitor what displays you look at, how long you look at them, and whether you purchase. Which is all reflected in follow up advertising. So bought some cough syrup? Maybe they will suggest you wash your hands next time.

And its coming on a personal level too. They have been experimenting with cameras that record everything you see for some time now. But this is new - camera's that help you interpreting what other people are thinking:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128191.600-specs-that-see-right-through-you.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg21128191.600

Still feeling safer because of all of those cameras are watching you, suzeonline?