Yea I think:
- Google and Amazon etc won’t touch it cause it is bad PR
- stores won’t buy it cause it’s bad PR; fear of boycotting etc.
- physical retail is already on the decline; why spend money in a dying industry
- the whole project would have one big flaw - people wearing masks
An argument here is that it disincentivizes others from doing similar crimes. If the technology is so spot on that 99% of the time you commit the crime you'll get caught, then others will likely not take the risk.
Granted there's an easy counter argument there (all the more prescient these days) that they could wear a mask while committing the crime.
There's a similar (less discussed about) trend happening these days. Law enforcement is using DNA evidence from crime scenes, passing it through (sometimes private) DNA databases and getting matches.
Let's say those database continue to have more data – what are the odds that someone involved in a crime will leave some DNA behind, and will either themselves have their DNA in a database, or, a relative. The chances of you getting away with a crime converge to zero. And if you know you have high odds of getting caught when doing the crime, you might be less likely to do it in the first place.
How did the EU become such a bunch of luddites? Or does it only seem that way from outside?
I get that there are legit concerns about face recognition (as there are benefits), but the concerns _could_ be regulated. Granted, regulation is a much more work intensive process – you have to sit down with a large number of people, get educated on the subject etc. Is it laziness?
Or is this a negotiation tactic? Start asking for a permanent ban, and work your way back to regulation?