> You can support some uses of facial recognition without wanting it to be used to say ticket people for jaywalking. That's a huge assumption that many of us (

> You can support some uses of facial recognition without wanting it to be used to say ticket people for jaywalking. That's a huge assumption that many of us (opponents to widespread surveillance tech) just don't agree to. I don't think it's possible to hand government this kind of capability, then limit it to a specific set of uses. It always expands in scope, covering more and more use cases until the folks over at Vision Zero[0] make an impassioned plea, "Suppose you could prevent 10 pedestrian deaths a year by enforcing our jaywalking laws better? Why wouldn't you want facial recognition software to protect them?" Or maybe the bias-free policing people[1] put forward their argument that removing human cops from jaywalking enforcement will increase Equity. It would be a decent proposition! And you end up with every minor thing being automatically caught and ticketed. That would suck. "Slippery slope" may be a fallacy in formal logic, but it's damn useful in resisting the march into a dystopian future. Nip this shit in the bud. Make it require some effort to enforce the law. [0] http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/... [1] https://council.seattle.gov/2017/07/20/council-president-harrells-statement-on-jaywalking-tickets-disparity/ https://council.seattle.gov/2017/07/20/council-president-har...