So is eyewitness testimony. That's why we have trials. The problem in the case of a crime committed like that is not that the technology is used, it's when pe

So is eyewitness testimony. That's why we have trials. The problem in the case of a crime committed like that is not that the technology is used, it's when people assume the technology is infallible, when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary (just like there's not plenty of evidence that eyewitness testimony is not infallible and often subject to a bunch of problems). If facial recognition is perceived as low accuracy, but can yield some leads for investigators that can be independently corroborated, that seems like a fine use of the technology. If we're worried about the public assuming it's more accurate than it is if used as evidence in trials, we can either pass some laws about its use as trial evidence (which is not the same as using it as a lead), or train defense attorneys and the public (often done through TV...) that it's use in the role of proving guilt is extremely limited because of it's false positive rate.