Let's drop the bank robbery example since I brought it up and maybe you feel it's an uncharitable example.

But you brought up VW's emissions fraud. Do you really believe what they did should be legal, just because they got away with it for years?

Not especially - although I also feel that they were unfairly villainized because the cars were still WAY cleaner than stuff built the year before the new emissions laws. I'd also note that subsequently just about every other mfger was caught doing variations of the same thing.

Vehicle testing (emissions, especially, but MPG also) are highly synthetic measurements that aren't very representative of real world conditions.

But to come back to the point at hand - a ban on "facial recognition" is so vague that it doesn't actually accomplish anything - the companies will still do it, they'll just call it something else. "Biometrics", "Posture analysis", "Location monitoring".

Historically, government gets tech wrong, and getting it wrong fast just makes the situation worse.

I was around when the emissions rules were less strict. If you compare the air back then vs today you see quickly that environmental regulations were a big success. Companies fought them tooth and nail at every step but the rules worked.

Certainly true, but the regulations VW violated went into force in 2009. We're not talking about the smog era.

We still have plenty of unnncessary smog. This is not over.

Banning something by law is not just about enforcing it, but also sending a message to the public as to how it should perceived.