Facial Recognition in Public Places

The question

How to approach this discuss both views question

A discuss-both-views essay asks you to explain two opinions fairly and then give your own.

1. Introduce both views and say you will discuss them.
2. Paragraph 1: the first view with reasons and an example.
3. Paragraph 2: the second view with reasons and an example.
4. State your own opinion clearly (in the introduction or conclusion) and keep it consistent.

How to plan this answer

Structure

1. Introduction: paraphrase police use of facial recognition in public spaces, outline both views and state your opinion.
2. Body 1: the supporters' view, such as finding suspects and missing people, with one example of a real trial or operation.
3. Body 2: the critics' view, focusing on privacy and the risk of false matches, with the 2019 US study on accuracy differences as evidence.
4. Body 3: a middle position, setting out the safeguards you would require, such as court approval, limited use and deletion of data.
5. Conclusion: restate your opinion and explain which safeguard you consider essential.

Idea bank

• Missing people: quick identification at stations or crowded events could help locate missing children or vulnerable adults.
• Police trials: London's Metropolitan Police have trialled live facial recognition at public events, and matches have led to arrests of people on wanted lists.
• False matches: a 2019 study by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology found that many algorithms produced higher false-match rates for some demographic groups, so an innocent person may be wrongly stopped.
• Chilling effect: constant surveillance may discourage people from attending protests or political meetings, which weakens free expression.
• Safeguards: limiting use to serious crime, requiring court approval and deleting images after a short period would address many concerns.
• Example of restriction: San Francisco banned city agencies from using facial recognition in 2019, showing that local governments can choose to restrict it.

Useful vocabulary

• facial recognition software: Facial recognition software compares faces captured on camera with a database.
• to identify a suspect: The system helped police to identify a suspect in a busy station.
• a false match: A false match could lead to an innocent person being questioned.
• to disproportionately affect: Some systems have been shown to disproportionately affect certain ethnic groups.
• a chilling effect: Constant monitoring can create a chilling effect on public protest.
• to infringe on privacy: Routine scanning of crowds may infringe on privacy.
• subject to oversight: Any police use should be subject to independent oversight.
• to retain data: Authorities should not retain images for longer than necessary.
• to require a warrant: Requiring a warrant could limit misuse of the technology.
• to deter crime: Visible cameras may deter crime, but the benefit must be weighed against intrusion.

Common mistakes

• Explaining how facial recognition works technically at length, instead of arguing the question.
• Saying 'privacy is important' without explaining what would actually be lost.
• Presenting safety and privacy as opposites, without offering a middle position with specific safeguards.
• Using science-fiction examples rather than real cases such as trials or bans.
• Mixing police use with private shops or phones that use face scanning, which is a different question.

Examiner tip: Give each view its own paragraph with specific evidence, then set out the safeguards you would require before stating your opinion, so that your judgement is precise.