The fundamental argument for visible, public facial recognition is not about creating a dystopian surveillance state; it is about recreating the high-trust environment of a small town on a larger scale.
In a traditional small town, people leave their front doors unlocked, shops don’t have security screens, and bus drivers don’t sit behind bulletproof glass. This layout thrives not because small towns are magically free of people with criminal intent, but because of a simple psychological reality: any potential criminal knows they will be immediately recognised, identified, and caught.
Anonymity is the lifeblood of public crime. By pairing visible security cameras with facial recognition in spaces where there is already no legal expectation of privacy, we strip away that anonymity, replacing it with a digital version of the "watchful neighbour."
We are currently forcing our cities to choose between two types of security: physical barriers or digital accountability:
- Without smart digital accountability, we get physical fortification: bulletproof glass for bus drivers, locked-down grocery aisles, security screens, and gated communities. This makes public spaces feel hostile, suspicious, and fragmented.
- By utilizing visible facial recognition in public areas (where courts have long established there is no expectation of privacy), we can keep our physical spaces open, welcoming, and accessible. We trade ugly, restrictive physical barriers for seamless, invisible accountability.
We don't lock our doors because we want to live in a fortress; we lock them because anonymity protects the wrongdoer. By using visible, clearly marked facial recognition in public spaces, we eliminate that anonymity. We aren't destroying privacy - since no privacy exists on a public street - we are restoring the accountability of the small town, where the community is safe precisely because everyone is seen.
Postscript: above is putting the pro side. I know some here are unfamiliar with civilised debate, and will get angry, so I'll append that I'm not unaware of the dangers of this technology, and the need to mitigate them. I recognise the legitimate concerns people in different cultures, such as the civil rights history in the US. But Americans already have widespread facial recognition, its just outsourced to private companies like Meta, Palantir and Clearview. Is that better than regulated police use?
Perhaps the issue in the US is the fragmented nature of the policing system, with many small local forces acting without accountability. Would it be any better if facial recognition was limited to state and Federal police, where there would be better oversight? But now I remember the history of the FBI, so Americans' fear is understandable.
For different reasons, Germans may fear such tech is a single step away from a surveillance state.
