I agree with your point though.
Even if it is a lottery, if you lose your penalty is determined by the sliding scale of how reckless you were. That is a major factor in how fast drivers feel is reasonable.
With facial recognition, the farther along we go the frequency of its use will increase. However having the equivalent of a sliding scale of punishment could be useful.
Did the police department use facial recognition to try and identify who broke into a store? O.K.
Did the police department use facial recognition to preemptively surveil a high crime rate area and identify and keep track of everyone that goes to that area? Warning.
Did the police department use facial recognition to identify minorities and keep track of their activity across the city? The police department is banned from using facial recognition in the future and if caught again will face punishment on a case by case basis.
Well, stealing candy from a baby, or robbing an old woman is not hard to do either; anyone could do it, with even less skill than "a decent CS undergraduate student". Yet, it is illegal to do so and there will definitely be consequences to any such attempt.
In other words- something doesn't need to be hard to do, in order for it to be illegal, neither are there fewer consequences for performing illegal acts that are easy, rather than hard.
Those very same governments are also the main problem with censorship, and of course, their agents (police, politicians, ...) have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted with a stick [1], and don't follow the law.
And this is ignoring the fact that governments frequently see themselves as exempted for the law. In many cases, they build this into the laws in the first place.
So what exactly are you proposing we do ? If governments use this, who really cares who else is abusing it ?
In any case, I don't understand what you propose we do. Governments can fail to uphold their own laws. Should we do away with all laws? And then- what? A life of total lawlessness is better than one where laws are sometimes broken by government?
In western countries with civilized police and legal systems this is not tolerated.
* All existing laws should protect children, and protect people from discrimination. It should prevent the disclosure of health records. (So no AR apps that let you see who has what disease)
* The main concern is tracking people's location and movements and taking photographs and tagging people on social media sites.
* Some potential benefits are reducing crime and a "call parents" app that lets you call the parents of a misbehaving child without actually identifying the child to the person who has the app.
If "facial recognition" were banned, organizations would just start ignoring the face and proceed with other characteristics. The world of biometrics is huge, and the whole reason facial recognition is the biometric people pick on is because it is the easiest for laypeople to grasp.
This is article is nearly obsolete fear propaganda. We're getting wise to this crap, as the fear card is being played far too often, it's become the boy who cried wolf.
The barrier of entry is just too low. If a few pictures of your face are floating online, many people can make a system that will somewhat accurately try to detect your face; the best the regulation can do is to specify that organizations will not use facial recognition even if they trivially could.