Your chilling effect argument (2) is important, and it would be much stronger if it wasn’t sandwiched between a dubious assertion (1) and an irrelevant point (3).
How would it chill things that aren’t crimes without deterring actual crimes? This seems like a convenient set of assertions if you’re a priori against surveillance. You’re also missing the aspect of catching crime rather than deterring it.
The NYPD have used surveillance footage to go after people at protests before, and even people who proveably were just in the vicinity of a protest, but otherwise not participating. Frequently they issue basically bullshit tickets after the fact, things like blocking the sidewalk or breaking curfew after detaining protesters.
Do you really think there aren’t police forces that will use this in the furtherance of political goals?
Perhaps not coincidentally, that's the same thing that generally happens with gun control laws.
They're all built on a flawed principle - that criminals don't have and will not use workarounds. In reality, only law-abiding people have no workarounds.
Well... as someone living in a country with strict gun control laws who marvels at the dumb shit that goes on in America, I can say for certain that at least here the average run of the mill crazies don't have access to firearms and thank bloody goodness.
> The Met arrested 587 people in 2024 with the assistance of the live facial recognition cameras of which 424 were charged with offences.
Of those arrested, 58 were registered sex offenders in serious breach of their conditions and 38 have been charged.