That's stupid. You want objective fact, not slanted opinion.
I don't think the article's author had sufficient information to make any claims about success rates. Counting "not identified" as an error is wrong if the system only expects to identify hot-list faces - which is also more protective of privacy for those not on a list.
I'm not afraid of facial recognition. I fear what "the authority" can do with such a system, both intentionally and accidentally. High false positive rates may be necessary to get the best facial recognition, but they're also a reason to oppose facial recognition.