Article content continued

Does it matter? If hundreds of law-enforcement agencies have already started using the technology, is there anything we can do anyway? It truly does and there is, and that is at a minimum insisting that police be transparent, upfront and scrupulously honest about the technology they are using to monitor the public.

At a minimum insist that police be transparent about the technology they are using to monitor the public

How have we managed to threaten the existence of private spaces, forget about one of the most basic of civil liberties, and endanger the personal autonomy of every member of our free population without even having a debate about the wisdom of such a move? The entire development ought to be appreciated as a call to action — suspend the government’s use of Clearview’s app until boundaries have been set to protect personal privacy from being breached by the state.

Charlie Angus, an NDP MP with whom I agree about little, has called on the Liberal government to ban all use of facial-recognition software, “at least until we know for a fact that no laws in Canada have been breached.” Consequently, I can still say that I’m not on the exact same page as the NDP. It’s not necessary to completely prohibit all use of facial-recognition tech. For a start, it is far less dangerous if a private company is using this sort of surveillance to minimize shoplifting losses or enhance marketing than it is if government is using it for any reason, simply because government has more power. Macy’s can’t put you in jail. The government can.

Even then, it’s possible to contemplate ways the government could use facial-recognition software for valid law-enforcement purposes without crossing the line into illegal invasions of privacy.