>Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places
And what happens if we descend into military rule or a dictatorship? With "America's most wanted" fliers, the general public can just refuse to participate. With facial recognition, anyone deemed an "enemy of the state" can easily be tracked and eliminated.
Always assume the worst and work your way back to the good when doing the cost-benefit analysis.
Laws have a tendency not to stop dictators. They are the law.
In reality laws are only as powerful as their enforcement, and if there is no will to enforce, like what happens during transitions to dictatorships, then they’ll just be ignored.
And dictators have a tendency to use expensive infrastructure that was built before they came into power. Setting everything up so that switching from a free society to a mass surveillance and state control hellhole is as easy as editing a config file is not a good idea.
I think what's more important about not building surveillance infrastructure is not that the infrastructure does not exist, but that building it does not become normalized. It should be morally and socially unacceptable, so those hired to build and operate one will either refuse or sabotage it.
Some people consider violating laws immoral per se. If you make actions leading to a dictatorship illegal, you reduce the potential dictator's supporter base.
Also, in a functioning state, the bureaucracy (mostly) follows the law and the judicary's interpretation of the law. Then again, functioning states don't tend to turn into dictatorships.
(Fun fact: Article 20 (4) of the German constitution explicitly authorizes every German to resist when someone abolishes freedom and democracy. Considering the mentality of the average German, this is probably necessary.)
So in what way will facial recognition and "criminal spotted on 5th avenue" either dissuade or encourage totalitarianism/removing checks and balances?. If a Gov't falls into totalitarianism, a facial recognition ban (both internally within AMZN as well as on a national/local level) won't stop them from requiring AMZN to provide them facial recognition behind-the-scenes.
A tool that could track individuals and was under the perview of Executive Branch (eg Homeland Security) sounds pretty dangerous. Any political rivals of family members who go for STI screening, abortion clinics, gay bars, oncologist, or couples consoling could be either leveraged or leaked for political effect. Or you it could be used to track groups of people, activist, reporters. Or any number of ways I wouldn’t be able to think of.
What I was trying to say is that if you are trying to establish a totalitarism not having any checks and balances on something like that would be handly.
I agree with the general point that it isn't a good method of stopping a government falling into totalitarianism. However it is helpful if there is general consensus against facial recognition because it makes it a bit easier to identify the authoritarian-leading parts of government because they can't hide behind 'it is just usual practice'.
There are other, better, arguments in favor of personal liberty to use against facial recognition by law enforcement. Efficient, highly automated systems crush people who just happen to get caught up in them.
> So in what way will facial recognition and "criminal spotted on 5th avenue" either dissuade or encourage totalitarianism/removing checks and balances?. If a Gov't falls into totalitarianism, a facial recognition ban (both internally within AMZN as well as on a national/local level) won't stop them from requiring AMZN to provide them facial recognition behind-the-scenes.
Technologies take time to develop and deploy, and the fact of their development and deployment is a red flag that tells you something bad is coming and gives you time to react before it can actually be put into place.
Setting everything up for turnkey totalitarianism is not wise.
> the general public can just refuse to participate
The general public will be misled by the media. Already politicians are claiming that the media isn't truly independent or objective with claims of "fake news". If the media falsely claim that you are a dangerous criminal, the public will eat it up and ask for dessert.
And what happens if we descend into military rule or a dictatorship? With "America's most wanted" fliers, the general public can just refuse to participate. With facial recognition, anyone deemed an "enemy of the state" can easily be tracked and eliminated.
Always assume the worst and work your way back to the good when doing the cost-benefit analysis.