By all means be against facial recognition but please stop getting the maths wrong.
Suppose that you have a magic terrorist detector, such that that if you give your detector a picture of a terrorist, 99 times out of 100 it says "yes" and 1 time out of 100 it says "no". That means that it has a false negative rate of 1% and a true positive rate of 99%.
And suppose futher that if you give your detector a picture of a non-terrorist, 99 times out of 100 it says "no" and 1 time out of 100 it says "yes". That means that it has a false positive rate of 1% and a true negative rate of 99%.
This is a pretty fucking good detector. You would have to be an idiot to refuse to admit that such a scanner would be useful.
But. If you take this detector and scan 1,000,000 people, 100 of whom are terrorists - you will EXPECT, of the 999,900 non terrorists, to get 1% false positives. Which means the detector is going to go "TERRORIST" 9,999 times in error and remain silent 989,901 times correctly. And of the 100 terrorists, you expect it to go "TERRORIST" 99 times correctly, and remain silent once in error.
So of the 10,098 times it said there was a terrorist, in only 99 of them was there actually a terrorist. About 1% of the time when the machine goes beep does it mean there's really a terrorist there.
Does this mean that the system has a "99% false positive rate"? No. We established above, the system, which is a good and useful tool to have, has a 1% false positive rate. But if it is being used on a population with a very very low base rate you always expect the false positives to outnumber the true positives.
What the system has successfully done is narrow down for you a population where terrorists were 1 in 10,000 to one where they're 1 in 100, for you to look at more closely. This is useful.
What this article (and, every single other article on this subject has done) is commit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy and I wish you'd stop.
Argue against facial recognition, sure. Just please don't use nonsense statistics to do so.