he individuals who are rated as a false positive are treated well and they are not questioned in an improper way. People have accepted that they sometimes have to endure minor inconveniences to be able to detect criminals. But in case there are too many false positives for each true positive, the harm done to innocent people is more important than detecting or arresting a criminal [5]. The systems should be tested on their performance before they are used. With the information this provides, improvements can be made to the systems in order to reduce the rate of false positives [4]. The challenge is how to trade-off between privacy and the security of facial recognition systems. One cannot prevaricate the loss of privacy by using facial recognition in everyday life. But the question is, is the improvement in security enough relative to the loss of the individual’s privacy? There is not one specific answer to this question. There are and there always will be propone­­­nts and opponents for the use of facial recognition systems. The proponents state that the systems gain enough security relative to the loss of privacy. It can help to prevent crime and detect criminals, thus people feel safer. But the opponents state that there will be too much loss of privacy, the technology can make errors and can be misused. This makes people fearful. There should be made strict guidelines concerning privacy when using facial recognition to prevent everyday crime. Furthermore, the technologies should be checked very well, so that there are no chances on false positives. 5. Conclusion>