>Courts will say that when you're in public you give certain privacy rights away etc. etc.
This is the law of the land right now. As to your next example, I don't see what's wrong with those, as missing a court date or violating parole is a perfectly legitimate reason for you to be arrested.
They already wrongly ticket people at stop lights, it's a racket. They could just mail you a ticket for very small petty "crimes," like not throwing something in the right bin, jay walking, etc. Do people really think police will only use this to solve crime? Solving crimes doesn't pay the bills. Ticketing people does. Then they could also use the facial recognition to get everyone that's at a protest of the government (they already do this somewhat with cell phone signals) then they know who to put on a watch list...even if it's a legitimate protest.
I'm a bit perturbed that people on this board aren't more concerned about the many bad ways that this can be used for, especially since police oversight is notoriously bad, in virtually every country, including the west.
Stuff like this is why I'm an anarchist. This power is not yet balanced enough to promote liberty with the same magnitude that it can demolish liberty. When drug dealers can take a picture of a potential customer and match it against a global database of official police photos and informants, then I will be less wary of cops matching video against criminal mugshots in real time. If the criminals can't hide from their warrants, the cops can't go undercover, either. If Joe Citizen can get an automatic ticket for jaywalking, Jack Cop should get an automatic ticket for speeding without emergency signals on, and for not wearing seat belts. If the balance tips too far one way, you get a police state; if it tips too far the other way, you get rampant criminality. The criminals have to be constrained by risk of capture, and the cops have to be constrained by prioritization of resources. Currently, I think the balance favors police state.
The only viable counter I have managed to imagine so far (for the US) against automated facial recognition is to develop a new, serious religion that always wears identity-concealing veils, masks, and costumes in public places. It has to be a religious value, because otherwise, state-by-state anti-mask laws may be employed. This may be easily justified as an expression of egalitarian non-discrimination. If one cannot immediately identify someone as a member of an out-group, such as by their facial features or skin color, it is more difficult to treat them differently from a member of an in-group. It's harder to be racist if you don't know what races other people are. So adherents might also be required to wear gloves and concealing clothing, or full-body coverings like "morph suits". Fursuit cosplayers are likely to be political allies.
If you are worried about automatic ID, you should find out whether your state is a stop-and-identify state, and if so, work to have those repealed, along with any anti-mask laws. The presumption of innocence goes hand-in-hand with the right to pseudo-anonymity in public. If you aren't doing anything criminal, nobody needs to be identifying you. Sometimes, I even prefer not to be identifiable to my friends--maybe I just want to get some groceries without having to stop and talk to anybody.
All these technologies should be used first on cops and government officials, to ensure they are upright, before being used on anyone else. Qui custodiet custodes applies. It is too dangerous to be used by anyone who is not provably trustworthy.
>I'm a bit perturbed that people on this board aren't more concerned about the many bad ways that this can be used for, especially since police oversight is notoriously bad, in virtually every country, including the west.
On the contrary, I share the concern, but I don't share the conclusion that police should be relegated to crunching data with nothing more complicated than an abacus (obvious hyperbole) because of abuse concerns.
I also believe in a level of consistency that states no, you do not have a right to privacy in public. Any such abuses should be dealt with on a case-by-case, abuse-by-abuse basis, rather than unreasonable blanket bans. And any such cases must be ruled based on existing law, rather than what amounts to bench legislation.
This is the law of the land right now. As to your next example, I don't see what's wrong with those, as missing a court date or violating parole is a perfectly legitimate reason for you to be arrested.