Live facial recognition cameras may become 'commonplace' as police use soars

Inevitability, Sousveillance, and Asymmetry of Power

• Several see large-scale facial recognition as technologically inevitable, arguing the only realistic mitigation is “sousveillance” (civilians watching authorities) to counter asymmetry.
• Others are skeptical that sousveillance will help: officials can openly take credit for surveillance systems, and the public lacks equivalent institutional power.
• There’s concern over who gets anonymity and accountability: police vs public, moderators vs users, with complaints about opaque moderation and hidden decision-making.

Crime, Safety, and Social Consequences

• Supporters note reported successes: hundreds of arrests and some serious offenders caught with help from facial recognition.
• Critics ask for denominators: how many people were scanned and tracked, and in how many cases was the tech uniquely necessary?
• Fears include:
  • Intensifying criminalization of already over-policed communities, forcing those with warrants or minor “lifestyle” offenses to avoid cameras and public space.
  • Chilling effects on protest, association, and everyday behavior, while determined criminals adapt or mask up.
  • “Two-tier” enforcement: automated, strict punishment for ordinary people vs weak enforcement against hardened offenders.

Abuse, Data Markets, and Function Creep

• Many worry about databases being repurposed: lenders, marketers, stalkers, abusive insiders, or future regimes misusing movement and identity data.
• Examples are raised of plate-recognition and other data already sold or accessed by private firms and law enforcement.
• Some argue UK safeguards (logging, discipline, prosecutions) show such systems can be controlled; others counter with US examples of systemic misuse and mission creep (Patriot Act, ICE, ALPR vendors).

Legal, Ethical, and Constitutional Debates

• Proposals include treating facial surveillance like wiretaps: bulk collection allowed, but query limited by warrant and narrow purpose.
• Others call for outright bans or criminal penalties on building tracking databases, though skeptics say cheap hardware and hobbyists make bans impractical.
• A US-focused subthread debates whether mass automated tracking in public violates the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, even if traditional doctrine says there’s “no expectation of privacy” in public.

Technical Escalation and Futuristic Scenarios

• Commenters note expansion beyond faces: gait recognition, cross-building tracking, and long-term data retention via hashes and metadata.
• Some think such systems could approach near-infallible tracking; others doubt the reliability of current AI and point to high false-positive rates as reason enough to prohibit deployment.