I’m of the opinion that identification should be the individual’s choice, ie supplying credentials.
When organizations gain the ability to identify without consent, the door is opened for some very malicious practices.
When organizations gain the ability to identify without consent, the door is opened for some very malicious practices.
Britain just scored a big win in the novichok poisoning case by being able to trace the movements of Russian operatives using cameras.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/world/europe/russia-uk-no...
This trend will continue as long as the wins are bigger than the abuses.
There’s also the question of whether people understand and care about potential, or if it would need to happen first.
If, however, crime reduces your personal liberty to the point where you are uncomfortable walking outside, then cameras (and facial recognition software) will seem to add more liberty than it takes away. People buy products like Ring and security cameras for this very reason, they want to feel safe.
You might say, "Okay, but that's security theater. The real issue is because Donald J Trump, or an unchecked NSA might use them for more nefarious reasons. And it's not even clear they work to reduce crime..."
At which point the average person says, "I just want to feel safe at night when I walk the dog. And frankly, the investment in cameras are worth it if they help catch Russian spies..."