It really doesn't matter what the legislation says - no doubt they have already been doing and been calling it something else. It's going to be one of the worst things to come out of the 21st century.

For better or worse (and better only being in the sense that things need to get worse before they get better) there are a great many in Massachusetts do believe all-seeing government surveillance (though if you phrased it like that they'd probably take issue) is a net plus to society.

The government already knows that, via Google, Facebook, and the telcos.

Edit: Agreed, no conviction was involved, so their statement looks exaggerated.

Yes, so a wrongful arrest was made, and thus the technology isn’t perfect, so we shouldn’t use it is the thinking?

Well actually no, apparently wrongful arrests aren’t sufficient cause to ban a technology but only one believed to racially discriminate lol.

Or maybe the real reason is because it’s become fashionable of late to fuck the police and the whole because reasons is an afterthought.

In any case, the larger point, the one suggested by the OP, the one met with foolish acquiescence in response, the one suggesting that our justice system convicts people on the basis of facial recognition technology is wrong..

Structurally—not necessarily individually, though often that too—malevolent, not incompetent, at least as is most relevant to the issue at hand.