It is a deliberate wedge strategy that has been employed at least once in the UK before. (I couldn’t find a source right now, will report back when I can.)
The goal is to be able to say to higher powers that «we reached out to the public and they didn’t mind.»
And then it’s made permanent.
Because why would anybody who's not a criminal or up to no good have any issue with the tracking, right?
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-1...
for historical context, this was not passed historically to combat the KKK, who have a storied history in this state. Nor was it passed under national security hysteria. It was passed very recently, to arrest guy fawke's mask wearers at the Anonymous Million Mask March.
Or maybe a Theresa May paper mask...
IE: Government sees a group of people visiting suspicious websites, they use phone location tracking to see that a small group is meeting up in person, government then uses facial recognition to track them 24/7 and eventually finds an excuse to arrest them before the movement can grow
Although I doubt people will do anything, we're too comfortable and they'll simply boil us like frogs, pushing privacy rights back inch by inch until people finally realize they are against the edge of a cliff
This line really creeps me out. Essentially: "But it's OK, because we're being very clear about what we are doing, handing out leaflets and wearing our uniforms so you can trust us."
If these trials are successful - or, for that matter, if they are not - can we assume that they will drop all of that facade at the earliest opportunity in favour of silent and ubiquitous rollout?
Who will be wearing uniforms and handing out fliers in 1, 2 or 5 years, when facial recognition surveillance technology operates behind every one of the thousands of surveillance cameras that capture our faces and movements every single day?