Stuff like this is why I'm an anarchist. This power is not yet balanced enough to promote liberty with the same magnitude that it can demolish liberty. When d

Stuff like this is why I'm an anarchist. This power is not yet balanced enough to promote liberty with the same magnitude that it can demolish liberty. When drug dealers can take a picture of a potential customer and match it against a global database of official police photos and informants, then I will be less wary of cops matching video against criminal mugshots in real time. If the criminals can't hide from their warrants, the cops can't go undercover, either. If Joe Citizen can get an automatic ticket for jaywalking, Jack Cop should get an automatic ticket for speeding without emergency signals on, and for not wearing seat belts. If the balance tips too far one way, you get a police state; if it tips too far the other way, you get rampant criminality. The criminals have to be constrained by risk of capture, and the cops have to be constrained by prioritization of resources. Currently, I think the balance favors police state. The only viable counter I have managed to imagine so far (for the US) against automated facial recognition is to develop a new, serious religion that always wears identity-concealing veils, masks, and costumes in public places. It has to be a religious value, because otherwise, state-by-state anti-mask laws may be employed. This may be easily justified as an expression of egalitarian non-discrimination. If one cannot immediately identify someone as a member of an out-group, such as by their facial features or skin color, it is more difficult to treat them differently from a member of an in-group. It's harder to be racist if you don't know what races other people are. So adherents might also be required to wear gloves and concealing clothing, or full-body coverings like "morph suits". Fursuit cosplayers are likely to be political allies. If you are worried about automatic ID, you should find out whether your state is a stop-and-identify state, and if so, work to have those repealed, along with any anti-mask laws. The presumption of innocence goes hand-in-hand with the right to pseudo-anonymity in public. If you aren't doing anything criminal, nobody needs to be identifying you. Sometimes, I even prefer not to be identifiable to my friends--maybe I just want to get some groceries without having to stop and talk to anybody. All these technologies should be used first on cops and government officials, to ensure they are upright, before being used on anyone else. Qui custodiet custodes applies. It is too dangerous to be used by anyone who is not provably trustworthy.