Raw LLM Responses

> Like one, is this really such a bad thing to have in public places? The entrance to pharmacies, therapist offices, gambling establishments, strip clubs, liquor stores, night clubs, gay bars, your friends and family's house, and thousands of other places are technically public places at the street. If a government places a camera near every one of these and collects data then someone could perform queries to track an individual all across the US building a profile on them. The argument I've read in favor of this is that 1:1 tracking of all US citizens and their actions is valuable information to a government and can be useful in a wide range of policies without being abused. It can also be used to eliminate crime by tracking people nearly perfectly back to their home from any crime. A lot of people that lean auth support certain parts of a police state as it can be used to enforce laws in an automatic way. It's sometimes compared to a red light camera where violators receive automatic citations in the mail by use of machine learning to identify the individual and possibly actions. This can cause a chilling effect on citizen's behavior and how they act when they know they're under constant surveillance. (Proponents argue that this would be the new normal and that citizens would get used to it). The people for banning or placing moratoriums on allowing facial recognition often point out the complete lack of oversight and security going hand in hand with these rapid rollouts of facial recognition. There's a kind of reactive attitude for who has access to the systems. "We'll enact policies when abuses happen maybe" kind of thing. There's also a lack of clear security on how video and data will be protected. (This goes into who has access and what queries they can run). A lot of queries when ran on a large system can't simply be undone if they're leaked. Proponents like to focus only on faces, but gait tracking, and various other machine learning algorithms are a b