Less concerned about privacy. More concerned about what this sort of thing means to juries. A lot of forensic "evidence" is not actually completely conclusive,

Less concerned about privacy. More concerned about what this sort of thing means to juries. A lot of forensic "evidence" is not actually completely conclusive, but people seem to have a built-in notion of how solid, say, fingerprint and DNA analysis are. It's sometimes very hard to convince a jury that these things are not necessarily incriminating, which is very bad because on a surprisingly often basis they are not strong enough to warrant conviction. Facial recognition is also not completely foolproof, and while I applaud the idea that we should leverage technology to catch criminals who would otherwise go free, I personally am not willing to do so at the cost of innocent convictions. I recommend proceeding down this path cautiously.