It's too easy to implement, so it can't be regularized.
The only thing you get in return is that you'll be able to recognize the faces of police officers as well with the same technology. The world is shrinking, and it will feel like we're all living in a huge village.
> and it will feel like we're all living in a huge village
A very apt way of putting it. For a while now I've held the opinion that anonymity (and to some degree privacy, at least the privacy you expect from anonymity) as we know it is a short-lived artifact of our accumulation into larger groups, where it's not possible to know everyone around you and almost everything about them. The farther back you go, the less anonymity there was to the people that you saw every day.
In that respect, what we're seeing is a return to the norm. That doesn't mean it's better, but I'm not sure there's a way to actually prevent it exept on an individual basis, and then only with a lot of work on the part of that individual.
I'm not sure what you think gives the state a monopoly on this. There's massive amounts of information about most people online, and there will be even more in the future. I think it's likely that in the future even if you've never put a single picture of yourself online, there will likely be enough images of people in public and associated information to identify you anyway (use a credit card at a store? Why wouldn't they choose to associate your image from in-store cameras with that customer record?).
All the more egregious aspects of online marketing and tracking are coming to the physical realm. You too will likely be able to access this information for a price. Good luck trying to stop it. Honestly. The world would be a better place in my estimation if you could. I just have little faith in measures designed to combat economically incentivized behavior.
> It's too easy to implement, so it can't be regularized
A backdoor for the state to have mic and camera access in all iPhones is very easy to implement.
But people don't want it, so it's not (currently) there.
Clipper chips have been possible for over 20 years, but as a society, we decided that we didn't want them. What people want is more important than what's possible.
It can only be implemented if you have a database of faces. You can probably get that from mug shots, but false positives may be challenging without a database of everyone else.
And I think it's still quite hard to do for video and real-time though.
You can't regulate technology out of existence; the harder you try the greater the potential rewards for using it asymmetrically. I can think of legal objections, but I can also think of equally good arguments that circumvent those objections. Rather than wishing a new technology away, which has never ever worked, it's better to assume it will be the norm and then try to imagine what countermeasures would be deployed in response.
No, but you can regulate it into regulation. This is why police need a warrant to pick the lock on your front door, or to use a thermal imaging camera on your home.
Or why police need to announce that they smell weed before bashing in your front door to check. Or make a statement that they heard someone screaming for help before bashing in your front door. Or make a statement that they heard gun fire so they can bash in your front door. My point being police don't always need a warrant to enter a place. Just like they don't need warrants to MITM cell towers.