I read with a sense of disbelief the article about the American Civil Liberties Union opposing the use of driver's license photos and facial scan technology, a valuable tool in law enforcement ("Md. use of facial scans decried," Oct. 19).
Let's look at an example: Say your son or daughter is kidnapped and it happens where a security camera records the event. Which is faster and more efficient at identifying and arresting the kidnapper — a general description of clothing and facial characteristics and then trying to match that with an actual person, or running the picture through a facial scan which picks up all the fine details of the person's face? If it were my own son or daughter, I would much prefer the latter, as it could greatly reduce the time in apprehending the criminal.
In order to get a driver's license, we allow our picture to be used for identification purposes. I fail to see why, unless the applicant is a criminal, we should object to using this valuable resource in helping catch the bad guys! Another thing — eyewitness testimony is quite often erroneous. A facial scan picks up fine details that the memory of an eyewitness cannot supply.
Charles Hoover