"It is not the right way to regulate,"
Well obviously it doesn't suit Moore, but his arguments don't really suit me.
1) he doesn't know of any law enforcement agency that wants to use the technology for real-time surveillance
The word missing there is "yet". He also states that we don't have the processing power, again missing the word "yet". We will get there, and the police already have a fairly extensive track record of abusing their powers and tools with gay abandon.
2) He says that combined with improvements in the technology, we are rapidly getting to the point where within two-to-three years, the degree of accuracy in facial recognition will be in "high 90s" for all types of people
Come back in two-to-three years then, and we'll talk about it again.
3) it would be harder for a police officer to justify, say, stopping a black man because he thought he looked like a suspect if there was a facial recognition result that said it was only 80 per cent accurate
I think a policeman would take a 4 out of 5 as a perfect reason for stopping the guy, with whatever consequences that may follow.
4) the issue only got a "spotlight on it because facial recognition was in the same sentence."
Well duh, if there hadn't been a camera, the guy wouldn't have felt the need to hide his face. Facial recog was at the very base of the problem, so yeah, it got the spotlight and rightly so.
5) "Guns are a serious problem," he notes. "This technology is there to make better decisions."
Sure, because FR is going to keep someone from pulling a gun. Way to go there, Moore. Let's not address the issue of guns, let's just put a band-aid over it and we can all feel all nice and fuzzy.
6) We have turned down multiple clients where their use of the technology was not aligned with what we wanted to do.
I am so impressed. How lucky we are to have you. Now what are you going to do about your competition ? Are you going to ensure that they act with the same, admirable, attitude ? How ?
It may be that regulation should happen at a federal level, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that either way.
But I'm pretty sure that,whatever the level, the regulation should give clear guidance as to where FR is acceptable, how the data should be treated, how long it can legally be stored and what procedures should ensure that the data is properly deleted when its expiry date is passed.
Oh, and selling the database should be a federal crime passable of 5-10 years without parole.