Invasion of Privacy
As american citizens, we are living in an age where we are advancing with facial recognition technology that scans our faces and follows us throughout our daily lives. Being American citizens, this technology is a violation of our 4th amendment right to privacy. This facial recognition technology is used as a violation of our 4th amendment. As american citizens, we need to realize that our information is being collected and stored. Facial recognition technology is used as a consistent identification. According to the U.S. government, facial recognition is used to keep track of terrorism that could occur throughout the cities in the United States, but from information unveiled, we have realized that our information is being used for more militaristic uses. Our face is in a police lineup right now according to this article. In the article, half of american citizens faces are unknowingly being stored in police databases, and being used to solve crimes much more quickly. We the american people do not deserve to have our information used against us. This is a very militaristic use of our information, because it is not normal for police to plot against American citizens and gather our information in an unforgiving manner. The objective of law enforcement is to protect and serve, not invade and conquer. Collection of our information through facial recognition is a very corrupt act that goes against the basis of american freedom.
American facial recognition technology collects our information with ease and of no consent. The respect for privacy is gone in america as microsoft shows with their data set of celebrity face; a giant collect of celebrity faces taken against their will. This is an evil act and it should not be tolerated by the American society.
Facial recognition inappropriately invades our privacy and thieves all of our information for militaristic uses. The development of facial recognition is stripping the fourth amendment of innocent American citizens who deserve to keep their privacy. Facial recognition is literally taking the identities of innocent people and viciously using their information for a police lineup. In the article, “your in a police lineup” it describes how our privacy is deeply in danger if we lay submissive to the government taking our identity. The government can track everything we do online with facial recognition, and can use this information against us. These types of police lineups can intrude on innocent people’s lives, accusing them safely and destroying lives.
The thieving of our information is an evil act that is made more efficiently with face recognition. Face recognition robs innocent law abiding citizens of their identity. It is being used to control citizens and pressure them into giving up their rights as people. This is an evil act of manipulation used against people for personal gain by companies such as microsoft
Now let’s look at the claims you make in your 2nd paragraph and see if they help us draw a conclusion.
—Much of this, of course, is with our permission. We share our names, social security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, mothers’ maiden names, names of employers, bank accounts, and much more with government agencies all the time when we apply for a drivers’ license or a passport, register to vote, or ask for a government-backed loan like a mortgage. We willingly give other financial information to credit card companies, even websites when we want to buy something online. So “knowing that our information is being collected and stored” is just part of life, isn’t it?
—I have no idea what this means. Do you mean “constant”? Or that it’s routine, or everyday, or that it’s pervasive, happening everywhere all the time?
It’s not clear how facial recognition tracks terrorism, but we take it you wouldn’t object if this were the case, right? So far, in three sentences, you haven’t said anything that sounds objectionable or out of the ordinary.
—So, OK. You’re preparing us for the payoff. We’ve been lax, letting everybody have our information, thinking we were safe, but now you’re going to tell us we’ve been duped. We’re ready.
—That’s foreboding. How did I get into a lineup? And for what? I’ve done nothing.
—First of all, we don’t know what article you’re talking about, Tokens. Secondly, you said you were going to prove “militaristic” use of our information, or show that we’re in a lineup. This sentence does neither.
—Well, if crimes are being solved, then let’s do it. Right? Is solving crimes more quickly an outcome we should fear?
—You haven’t shown that our information IS being used against us, unless solving crimes violates our rights.
—Hard to see what you mean by this, Tokens.
—You haven’t said what information is being gathered, or by whom, or what’s unforgiving about the method of gathering.
—You haven’t named a gathering system that seems invasive, and the only thing you’ve said gets conquered is crime. What am I missing, Tokens?
—It may be, but you can’t just say so, Tokens. If every new car had a camera in the rear-view mirror that transmitted everything we said from the driver’s seat without our knowledge, THAT would be a very corrupt act because it would gather very specific actions and speech without our consent and without reasonable cause. But what’s unconstitutional about putting security cameras in the drug store to catch shoplifters in the act? Is that militaristic? Does it violate a principle that we had a right to expect privacy in the drug store?
You’re going to need to come up with evidence of abuses of power here, Tokens.
Is that helpful?
Let’s just take a look at your first paragraph, Tokens.
—Readers won’t know what you mean by “advancing with facial recognition,” Tokens. Advances are generally good. You appear to be happy about advancing technology.
—It’s hard to understand how a technology “follows us through our lives.” If you mean our faces are being scanned wherever we go, that’s clear and you should say so.
—Be careful starting sentences with “By.” Your construction grammatically means that “this technology” is American citizens.
—Your third sentence is almost literally identical to your second sentence. Both mean precisely that FRT violates our 4th amendment rights.
professor, I would love to know if my argument needs to be fixed a little more or clarified in a specific way. I also would love to know if you believe that I should add more to support my argument, thank you professor.