Would you support national CCTV, facial recognition and DNA collection at birth?

[Rostio]

For the purpose of law and order, would you be for or against:
A) More CCTV and facial recognition, all connected to a national system.
B) DNA collected and recorded from babies at birth.

(Ironically, the first time I've used the AI title generation!).

You only have 3 pictures of yourself? In the whole world? Ever?

None of you as a baby, child, teen, on holiday, family Christmases, nights out, weddings, parties, daytrips, school photos, nothing? Just 3 photos?

If you're suspicious of AI, think what it would do with all your data.

Yes it's true most people do post videos and pictures of themselves online but a minority of us don't and the choice for privacy should be there. Only three pictures of me exist, and they're physical photos

I worked for the police and I would say most of the crimes we investigated that were committed in public had either been caught on camera or had footage that provided very strong evidence. (It was a revelation to me, I hadn't realised how many cameras were out there).

If you're suspicious of AI, think what it would do with all your data. My point was that the person arguing against "Big Brother" was using AI to do so. So much for critical thinking.

Not surveillance, that feels too ‘big brother’

But a group of us were having a conversation about collecting DNA the other day and all except 1 were for it - nothing to hide

The number of crimes that could be solved without years of waiting, the wrongly accused that could be sorted, medical breakthroughs, child maintenance responsibility proven…

There will always be cons, but for me the pros on this one outweigh them

No is a complete answer.

Hope that helped.

You don't know they were using AI, I assumed you just said that to discredit them because you can't respond to their position adequately.

But a group of us were having a conversation about collecting DNA the other day and all except 1 were for it - nothing to hide
The number of crimes that could be solved without years of waiting, the wrongly accused that could be sorted, medical breakthroughs, child maintenance responsibility proven
There will always be cons, but for me the pros on this one outweigh them

Yes, and as a woman I am statistically far more likely to have a crime against me prevented/solved by DNA collection than used against me. I realise that skews my perspective.

You don't know they were using AI, I assumed you just said that to discredit them because you can't respond to their position adequately. No, your assumption is wrong. It has the tells of AI.

For me, people’s right to privacy far outweighs the need to solve every single crime. The majority of people are not criminals. If you think this DNA bank wouldn’t be misused if we ended up with an authoritarian government, you should do some more reading.

I don’t want to live in a police state. I was already born in one (another country). Never again.

No, I don’t trust how it would be used or stored.

You are such a trusting soul.

Have you read 1984? If yes, maybe reread!
Obviously the scenarios are different, but the relationship between state and individual in the book is worth seriously considering.

Again you do not respond to the substance of the points in the post.

You are deflecting, perhaps because you didn't understand it?

Buttle/Tuttle

We can't thrust the police with what they have now. Why the fuck would anyone volunteer to give them even more ammunition to weave into their corrupt little schemes.

I used to be in the ‘I don’t have anything to hide’ so could see the benefits camp.

I now no longer feel this way. Everyone is a ‘good citizen’ until the next regime change.

Policing in regards to hate speech online, enforcing stricter laws around protest etc make me aware that what I understand to be ‘wrongdoing’ can change quickly, and I don’t feel comfortable with how these laws and regulations are being applied or enforced.

I prefer a carrot to a stick approach when it comes to social compliance - the costs of this infrastructure being introduced would be significant and I would prefer a positive shift where the finances are concerned, rather than ruling through fear.

For me, people’s right to privacy far outweighs the need to solve every single crime. The majority of people are not criminals. If you think this DNA bank wouldn’t be misused if we ended up with an authoritarian government, you should do some more reading.

This is a strong argument against too, well put.

Again you do not respond to the substance of the points in the post. Because I decided to have the discussion with (hopefully) real women, not fucking AI.

The reasons for my no are, other than Mumsnet and LinkedIn I don’t use social media so there are no photos of me online. I’ve never committed a crime and am very unlikely to in the future unless you include driving slightly too fast on the motorway so there’s no need for my DNA to be stored anywhere. I’m very much against compulsory ID cards, I already have a passport, driving licence and birth certificate.

And most of all, I have absolutely no faith in the government or any other entity which might be responsible for such an invasion of privacy keeping my data safe.

Thank you @ItsOnlyHobnobs - well argued too!

Because I decided to have the discussion with (hopefully) real women, not fucking AI.

Yes. But "AI" can be guided to agree with you. Surely that's far better than real debate
.
.
.
😀

I don't see why this would even be up for debate, other than maybe in North Korea - where, ironically, there would be no debate as the government would force it on people against their will or consideration.

Why not suggest that we have 24/7 CCTV and audio recording in every room of every private house? That would help solve a lot of crime. In fact, it probably won't be long until AI will claim to be able to tap into people's minds and know what they're thinking, then predict what they will think, say and do next.

On the plus side, we won't need to research any further with developing robots, as we meatbags will be the robots.

No because it could be so easily misused. You wpild just be whipped off the street 1984 style with absolutely no opportunity to defend yourself. No trial would be needed.

Imagine if a lunatic like Trump had that power right here and now. Look at how his flying monkeys forced Hilary Clinton to testify in that Epstein thing and it wasn’t allowed to be recorded. If he had been able to, I’ve got no doubt he would have just said ‘the Clinton’s were on the island, their DNA was found’ and that would have been the end of it.

So you could be in a position where someone could use their authority to control or take revenge on anyone they chose to.

We are already in a situation here in the UK where police officers have abused their power in big ways and in smaller ways.

This is very much it. We often like to assume that there are two groups of people: baddies who break the law and goodies like us who don't.

The baddies have cause to fear and need to be constantly looking over their shoulders, but we don't ever have any such concerns, thus our lives can be an open book as we have absolutely nothing to hide.

But what happens when opinion changes and we suddenly become the baddies? When society (or even just a relatively small number of influential people in it) starts to decree that black is white, up is down, night is day and good is bad?

Even aside from that, privacy is a basic automstic human right and does not need to be justified or pleaded for. If anybody disagrees, post your last three months' bank statements on this thread. If you object at all, I can only assume that you're a criminal money launderer. And don't even think about closing and locking the door next time you use a public toilet cubicle - obviously only shady people who are up to nefarious activities would even dream of feeling the need to do so in the first place...

No. And this encapsulates my reasoning. Thanks @ItsJustMeMyself

ten years or so ago I would have shrugged.

Now, watching how easily democracy is unravelling in the US, no way.

Yes I have read 1984

I do trust that most people are good

I do not trust our police or judiciary system to catch and prosecute successfully anywhere near enough rapists, murderers, paedophiles, assaulters. I believe DNA would both improve that and be a deterrent