# FILE NAME: 00001662.soc
# TITLE: Should we outlaw or severely restrict facial recognition software? [8f84453ae4dae6c818e717318dcaeea7]
# 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: 3
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - There should be no instances of the use of facial recognition software. In our opinion, the technology is inherently bad and cannot be used for good. It should be banned. The implications of its use are too great, and the potential for its misuse is too obvious. This technology is too sensitive and too dangerous to ever use.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agreed that there are both pros and cons to the technology. Its use for preventing identity fraud is widely accepted as being beneficial to society while its use to store personal data or for surveillance is highly controversial. We believe that in some circumstances, surveillance is justified but should be approved by a regulatory body. We are not yet sure what the most appropriate body for this would be.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Facial recognition software has enormous potential for good uses, such as preventing and detecting criminal activity and increasing security in public places. However, there is also a risk of its use 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.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It was agreed that the technology should be highly monitored. It was clear 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. As a result, we concluded that the technology should be closely 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.
3: 4,3,2,1
1: 3,4,2,1
1: 1,4,3,2