This past Tuesday, we were introduced to a scenario having to do with facial recognition via police cameras. The cameras were initially just used to hold those exceeding the speed limit (by at least 5mph) accountable. Upon becoming aware of this, the FBI asked for and received real time access to the system. Their intended use of the system was to identify and arrest members of terrorist organizations.
The primary objective of any nation is to protect the people on their own soil from any potential dangers. Based off this it is easy to conclude that the state police were adhering to utilitarianism. The “utility” of their actions will benefit most of the population. I guess we can assume that the “War on Terror” will have stepped one foot closer towards victory.
After further consideration, I must question if the police made the right choice. The obvious benefit is to those who live on American soil. But what about those Americans who also fall under the stigmatized category of “Muslim” or just possess stereotypical characteristics attributed toward terrorists? When only concerned with traffic violations, the system’s prime objective is to match license plate numbers and pictures to people. Under the use of the FBI, the system will filter through all the amassed data with the goal of locating “potential” terroristic persons.
Computers are useless on their own. They are solely composed of inorganic materials that are then assembled by humans and then powered by electricity. We have yet to perfectly incorporate artificial intelligence into computers. So, my point is that any computer program is an extension of the programmer and there is a probability that it too possesses biases. Regardless of bias, we should also expect a percentage of failure. There will be those who are falsely accused of terroristic crimes and/or affiliations. It wouldn’t be the first time. And yes, I understand that decisions of this magnitude are complex. The judicial system is a perfect example. Would you rather let loose murderous criminals or put someone innocent behind bars? I would not have the answer to that. What I do know is that this system does not have all the information necessary to make just decisions.
The bottom line is that there is a deprivation of freedom in this case. A group of people will be unjustly surveilled and categorized so that the freedoms of another group (the majority) will remain intact. To infringe on the freedoms of any citizen is immoral. It just seems convenient when we get to choose which freedoms to protect and which freedoms to stomp on.