Facial recognition, migrants and techism

As most of us have discovered in our private lives, the more we use technology, the more we rely upon it. We like it because it can reduce our involvement in mundane tasks. It can free us up to be more creative and perhaps enjoy life more. However, a reliance on gadgets breeds a greater reliance on gadgets. Before the launch of the first iPhone in 2007, not many people felt the need for a device on their phone to locate their vehicle in a car park or to open the car's doors. Today, though, we rely on smartphone apps for these and a myriad of other everyday tasks.

We may or may not have saved huge amounts of time, but it's worth stopping to think about what we're doing to our brains. What has happened to the parts of our brain that once did mental arithmetic, for example, or navigated city streets or spell-checked our writing?

By relegating these and so many other activities to machines, have we set ourselves up for digital dementia? Will mental problems we currently associate with dementia - such as confusion and short-term memory loss - soon become part of normal cognitive function?

Heavy reliance on technology also brings with it a particular mindset, one that is not necessarily helpful. It shifts our primary focus to efficiency, rather than humanity. A helpful example of this is the research and development work going on with fully autonomous military drones. These killer robots - that's what they are - might not only adjust their flight paths to accommodate weather patterns, as is currently the case but also decide who should be targeted.

This may prove a wonderful money-saver, by reducing the number of operators required, but it does absolutely nothing to promote a humane approach to conflict. It also confuses the issue of human culpability should something go wrong.

In a similar vein, one British producer of facial recognition CCTV advertises its wares with the following claim: "We're talking [here] about a completely automated system that requires very little interaction with the operator."

Efficient? Yes. Humane? Probably not so much, given that it's managed almost completely without human intervention.

Let's bring this closer to home. Not so long ago, if you planned a car journey you would consult a paper map. You would identify the route that most closely resembled a straight line from your location to your destination. However, in doing so you might notice that there are certain features on either side of that line, towns and places of interest you might break for lunch or give your children a new experience. That might lead you to adjust your route. It would now take a little longer, but potentially be more enjoyable.

SatNavs don't operate like that. They are programmed for efficiency. Unless you stipulate otherwise, they will recommend only the fastest route. They're a wonderful tool most of the time, but you never know what might have been possible had you not used the machine.

Similarly, relying on technology might restrict the humanity with which authority figures such as police carry out their duties. It sometimes seems that the scope police have for using what we would once have called common sense is shrinking. Precious resources are sometimes wasted on arresting individuals for little more than expressing an opinion on social media, on the pretext that a single person has felt aggrieved by those opinions and reported them.

Part of the problem is that human beings online quickly succumb to what psychologists call social disinhibition. When they're online, some people think that the normal conventions of social behaviour no longer apply, that they can say what they please without consequence. But the problem is also the result of police and law-makers focusing too much on technology, relying on it as the main prism through which to observe and evaluate human behaviour.

Relying heavily on technology may produce greater efficiencies in the short term, but in the longer term, it makes the system less human-centric, and less humane. What follows is the breakdown of trust between citizens and their guardians.

The Home Office and Justice Ministry would do well to step back and take a longer-term view before putting all their faith in technology. There are bigger issues at stake than tracking migrants convicted of crimes.