Is face recognition technology a step too far?

THOSE who oppose facial recognition technology by the police, despite its real benefits for targeting crime and fighting terrorism, should explain their objections to the parents of the children killed and maimed at Manchester Arena and the families of the Westminster and London Bridge terror attack victims. Supported by the campaign group Liberty, Ed Bridges, an office worker from Cardiff, has raised money through crowdfunding to pursue a legal action, claiming the suspected use of the technology by South Wales police was an unlawful violation of his privacy. Such individual rights should not be allowed to trump society’s right to protection by the state from terrorism, serious crime and harm. Supermarkets, social media and High Street banks already know more about our movements and behaviour than any police cameras. Why don’t the objectors spend their time challenging these widespread and often unregulated intrusions?

Name supplied, Kettering, Northants. HOW can facial recognition cameras be any more acceptable to the public than having their fingerprints taken when visiting a shopping precinct? Facial recognition should only be used if someone has been accused of a crime. If it becomes the norm, why not make it law that everyone must have their DNA and fingerprints put on police files?

KEN HOBBINS, Birmingham.

FACIAL recognition is a first-class tool to help the police do their job. Let us hope political correctness does not interfere. If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

JOHN McBAIN, Witney, Oxon. NOW we are being forced to have our photos taken by the police, what about DNA and fingerprints? Maybe trackers could be implanted, too. Welcome, Big Brother, your time has come.

ALAN JACOBS, Biddenham, Beds.