Food for thoughts and comparison...
Okay - I get the reasons for push back - and that is healthy in any free society. But I live in a small town, where EVERYBODY knows who you are and probably even know things that are true, that even I didn't know myself, or forgot, at least. So it is difficult for me to see what all the fuss about cameras and facial recognition is all about. Now we do occasionally have a crime in Smallville, and everyone usually thinks they know who did it, but they are rarely correct, but because everyone sees everyone else going down the street, and they know them, it is probably assumed by a person from the large metropolis that Joe Local Sixpack is a goner for good in the courts; but that is rarely how it turns out. Here is the reason why - no matter how well the witness thinks they saw Joe going down the street near the crime scene near the correct time of the incident, they STILL have to prove the ID of the crook under suspicion. This part never ceases to amaze me, because when the police do a line up so the witness(es) can ID the perp, it never fails that they flunk the test for ID of the real perp!!
So I figure even if the plod have the suspect on CCTV, the court should wait until a camera facial recognition can survive a line up. Why not? Is this machine any better than a real human eye witness? Well actually I should hope so, but I have my doubts. Even people in my town have got away with murder, so just how bad is this surveillance after all. I really don't fear public recognition machines at all. It just comes from being from a small town - your mileage may differ.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
