I have no problem with this move. One of my general principles, one I try to apply everywhere, it is: if you can perform an information processing task with your eyes and brain, you should have the freedom to program a computer to do that task. Under this principle, I have to allow public facial recognition: any functioning human can already do it, just at a smaller scale.
On other words, Rite-Aid employees can already recognize your face. Deal with it.
Why is my principle so important? Because the alternative conflicts with the computational enhancement of the mind, which is far more important than any illusory gains to had from banning this tech or that tech.
"Rite-Aid employees can already recognize your face"
Are those same employees networked together and can remember the exact day and time you where in any of the stores and know exactly what you purchased? They have also memorised the entire FBI most wanted list and any other list of faces that may be in a "bad credit" database?
>Under this principle, I have to allow public facial recognition: any functioning human can already do it, just at a smaller scale.
So you'd be fine with mega-corps or the government tracking everyone's movements with drones, and cataloging it into a massive database? After all, you can already do that with a bunch of minimum-wage workers and a map.
>Why is my principle so important? Because the alternative conflicts with the computational enhancement of the mind, which is far more important than any illusory gains to had from banning this tech or that tech.
So basically you want technological singularity, even if it means turning the world into a cyberpunk dystopia?
This of course sounds dramatic. But then, people who fall into this bucket continue to build, sell, and most importantly open source some of the most dramatically societal-changing tech with zero regard for what they enable.
This mindset would have open sourced the Manhattan Project if it was written in Python and used interesting storage advances, but it was safe because it was FOSS.
> Rite-Aid employees can already recognize your face.
You mean the two front store barely-above-minimum wager workers in a 15,000 sq.ft store given 10 tasks to complete in the time available for 6 while still maintaining performance metrics to avoid demerits and who are specifically instructed not to accuse anyone of shoplifting even if they directly observe it happening?
In fact, people can't accurately identity peoples faces, there have been many convictions of people based on people recognizing faces in a line up, and their recall of said persons face being completely wrong.
So by your own logic alone this technology should be dismantled.
You defer to a fantasy utilitarian argument, where the material interests of the average human right now should be subjugated to possible technological advancement. This makes your moral and ethical compass devoid of any humanity. This is truly a horrifying set of morals you have put forth.
Technological progress has always been a net good (life now is better than it has ever been), and luddism (which this facial recognition animus amounts to) has always been a net harm. Welfare has improved massively over time, and delays to technological improvement only delay these welfare gains and add misery to the world.
>Technological progress has always been a net good (life now is better than it has ever been)
Benefits can be imaginary and those don't weigh heavily against the harm being done. Bulk surveillance of people who aren't suspected of a crime, is one example.
Sometimes benefits only outweigh harm because the harm is limited - due to push-back (or the threat thereof) from the public.
On other words, Rite-Aid employees can already recognize your face. Deal with it.
Why is my principle so important? Because the alternative conflicts with the computational enhancement of the mind, which is far more important than any illusory gains to had from banning this tech or that tech.