> It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal.
Everyone is a criminal. You commit multiple crimes a day if you're like most people.
There absolutely should be a clear delineation between what is possible and what is allowed when considering state surveillance.
The 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's right there. You have a right to be secure as a person from unreasonable searches. Massive face recognition of 'criminals' is a violation of exactly that, and should be prevented without question.
Everyone is a criminal. You commit multiple crimes a day if you're like most people.
There absolutely should be a clear delineation between what is possible and what is allowed when considering state surveillance.
The 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's right there. You have a right to be secure as a person from unreasonable searches. Massive face recognition of 'criminals' is a violation of exactly that, and should be prevented without question.