As long as the results are not taken as judgements, but only auxiliary tool, it would not be a concern.

The article indeed argues that any positive match should be vetted by a human.

I have said before and I will say again: after the disaster that was the Amazon Fire Phone I have zero trust in any Amazon.com employee to pick up that any time phone to sound the alarm or if they do, I don't expect Amazon to "do the right thing". The reason I mention this is because I don't think this PhD fellow speaks for the the sales "engineers" at Amazon.com. The sales people will say what they have to say to make a sale.

Lets face it: we programmers just work at a company, the business actually runs the show. I have zero confidence that the customer will understand that "any positive match should be vetted by a human". What does vetting mean anyway?

No police has ever stopped me for matching the profile of a suspect, ever. However, I know people who say it happens (or at least used to happen) to them at least twice a year.

Is a blanket ban on law enforcement from using facial recognition possible? Or at least restrict it to federal agencies (a ban on all law enforcement that is not a federal agency)?