I believe it's the latter, given the last two paragraphs of TFA:

> In order to protect civil liberties without hampering innovation, lawmakers should require public input before surveillance tools are deployed and ensure that facial recognition databases are purged of data related to law-abiding people.

> lawmakers should ensure that real-time facial recognition capability is not merged with police cameras, whether they are dash cams, CCTV cameras, or body cameras. Facial recognition may well be a valuable investigatory tool, but outfitting police with real-time facial recognition capability will only increase the likelihood of needlessly contentious and violent confrontations between police officers and members of communities across the country.

Who decides what's law abiding? Is it just felonies? Felonise + certain misdemeanors? Jay walking? What if I broke the law 10 years ago but have been a model citizen since? This kind of language worries me.

> lawmakers should require public input before surveillance tools are deployed

Again, what does that mean? Input is not the same thing as saying the public can veto it. Even if it does required explicit approval from the public is that really a great solution? The public has made a lot of shitty political decisions recently. Furthermore, who counts as part of the public? If you're a convicted felon who served his time do you count as part of the public?

This shit reeks.

Exactly, look what's happening in China and try to convince yourself that we are not starting to walk down that road.

No, but I'm sure many of the people working on it will continue to deny that they are simply building tools of control. That, or they don't care, or think it's a good thing.

There's not enough upvotes for this comment. This what the Silicon Valley mindset leads to. This is what the attitude that even if technology isn't good and empowering, it's inevitable, leads to. This is what the "whatever it takes to make money" mindset leads to. This is what all these brave young engineers going out there to "change the world" and make it a better place have done.

Totalitarianism, forever. Take solace, though, citizen: it's not just the government tracking everything you do, it's everyone!

It makes me sick. I wish I had never gone into CS. I too am a collaborator. If it were up to me, we'd destroy the machines in a Butlerian Jihad. The road we're going down is dystopia with no way out. The tools of control will be total, all-encompassing, omniscient.

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the expectation that employees and corporations act with some (or any) kind of morality beyond "make money legally".

Philosophically I would rather laws and social norms are enforced by law and not corporations or individuals with disproportionate influence.

Are they not citizens? Surely a person has a duty above personal wealth. Past generations certainly thought that way.

I’m not sure about you but my personal identify is not wholly made up of my employment.

My comment is clearly about the danger of imposing morality through corporate influence.

I did not say that a person’s entire responsibility is to enrich themselves. I said that is the responsibility of an employee. People can and do have complex and sometimes conflicting interests and responsibilities.