3 ms·
because that's the only option. There is no scenario in which it's allowed in a narrow set of circumstances that isn't going to get abused by law enforcement. E
by TheRealPomax 5y ago
because that's the only option. There is no scenario in which it's allowed in a narrow set of circumstances that isn't going to get abused by law enforcement. Either you ban it, or law enforcement is going to find ways to abuse the right to use it, including appointing people whose job it is to say "this was fine".
If this was a reasonable society, with a reasonable police force: absolutely, narrow definitions of permitted use should be reasonably fine. But the US isn't, and the US doesn't, so in the US, it can't be.
(but then you look at countries where it might be fine, and it turns out that they don't need facial recognition to have a decent enough catch rate, kind of making the whole thing moot. No police force should use it, for wildly different reasons)
- exporectomy 5y agoExcept this is allowed in a narrow set of circumstances - to look for missing children. So they can probably dragnet everyone they see to find the missing children or abductors. Now the residents need a way to prevent the police misusing it by sneakily letting it find rapists and murderers.
- TheRealPomax 5y agoWelcome to the security vs. privacy debate. Glad to have you here, please read the pamphlet and please don't resort to a "won't anyone think of the children" argument. Because the statistics around facial recognition just don't work for that argument. However many children you think are saved with this: it's nowhere near that figure, if not flat out zero.