# FILE NAME: 00001656.soc
# TITLE: Should we outlaw or severely restrict facial recognition software? [d7e30198bde84516f367bbdc94734938]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, facial recognition software should be regulated but not outlawed. The technology has many potential benefits to society and can be used for many good purposes. However, it is also a technology that can be misused and therefore should be regulated. The regulation should be based on a case-by-case basis and the regulation should be overseen by a governing body. This governing body should be comprised of a variety of people, including those from the technology industry, government, and civil liberties groups. This group should have the power to approve or deny the usage of facial recognition software in a given situation.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Facial recognition software should be outlawed for private use. It should only be used by the government for things like passport control and criminal identification. It should not be used for things like marketing or social media. The government should regulate the use of this software and should be very careful about how it is used.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The potential for misuse of facial recognition software is too great. The software should be outlawed.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the technology should be highly monitored. We concluded that while there is obvious potential for its use in good ways, such as increasing security in public places and preventing criminal activity, it could also be used for nefarious purposes such as cloning identities to use for fraudulent monetary gain. It is obvious that such a technology should be closely regulated and highly monitored. Any instances of its use would have to be approved by the appropriate regulatory body. As of yet, it is not clear what the most appropriate body for this would be. Any instances of its use should be under close scrutiny and there should be little room for error. It is not enough for there to be the potential for its misuse; rather, any instances of its use should be subject to a stringent and thorough investigation before approval is given. Any instances of its use should be subject to ongoing assessment and any use that infringes on civil liberties should be banned.
2: 4,1,2,3
1: 4,2,1,3
1: 1,4,2,3
1: 3,4,1,2