No, using widespread license plate surveillance without clear transparency and oversight violates privacy and risks abuse of power.
#UCWCOMM150
@houmanmehrabian.bsky.social

AI surveillance can improve security, but without strict limits it becomes a serious threat to democracy and civil liberties.
#UCWCOMM150
@houmanmehrabian.bsky.social

Yes, constant surveillance can give governments excessive control over vulnerable groups by increasing monitoring, fear, and unequal enforcement.
#UCWCOMM150
@houmanmehrabian.bsky.social

Should ICE be allowed to expand its use of surveillance technologies with limited public oversight?

No. Police should not use AI facial recognition on body cameras because it can invade people’s privacy and make wrong identifications, which can seriously harm innocent people.
#UCWCOMM150
@houmanmehrabian.bsky.social

Police should use AI facial recognition only to a very limited extent. It should be restricted to serious crimes, used with strict laws, independent oversight, and public approval. Without strong safeguards, the risks to privacy, bias, and misuse are greater
#UCWCOMM150
@houmanmehrabian.bsky.social

No. Police should not use AI facial recognition on body cameras because it can invade people’s privacy and make wrong identifications, which can seriously harm innocent people.
#UCWCIMM150
@houmanmehrabian.bsky.social

Police should use AI facial recognition only to a very limited extent. It should be restricted to serious crimes, used with strict laws, independent oversight, and public approval. Without strong safeguards, the risks to privacy, bias, and misuse are greater than the public safety benefits.

Should police be allowed to use AI facial recognition on body cameras given the privacy risks and potential for bias?

Yes. U.S. tech companies should be legally responsible if they knowingly provide technology that enables China’s mass surveillance and human rights abuses. Claiming neutrality doesn’t work when the misuse is obvious, and without legal consequences, profit will always come before ethics.

Yes. U.S. tech companies should be legally responsible if they knowingly provide technology that enables China’s mass surveillance and human rights abuses. Claiming neutrality doesn’t work when the misuse is obvious, and without legal consequences, profit will always come before ethics.

Yes. U.S. tech companies should be legally responsible if they knowingly provide technology that enables China’s mass surveillance and human rights abuses. Claiming neutrality doesn’t work when the misuse is obvious, and without legal consequences, profit will always come before ethics.

Should U.S. technology companies be held legally responsible for enabling China’s digital surveillance state and its associated human rights abuses?