Question: do we know if police are using "find this face in a crowd" software or "log all faces and compare them to all people". The former is the same as was happening before only faster.
Not that I don't believe you, but I can't think of any examples off of the top of my head. Can you give me one?
Another is those automated speeding cameras. In several states they are unable to write tickets without a police officer present. My understanding is that this means the machine operates the same way and still writes tickets, the officer just has to be there as a "witness" and play phone games or whatever while the machine works. The end effect is the same, but the law requires an officer to be a witness to the crime in order to generate tickets.
So who know what other methods are used for parallel construction.
No, that's not the Supreme Court. That's the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
Another exemple is the rationale for EU privacy laws. It was fine to have your history in newspapers or judicial archives, as searching for them was prohibitive. But having it searchable through computers makes it trivial for would-be employers, neighbours, etc. to find out about you, transforming any small misdemeanour in a lifetime sentence.
When those tools become more powerful, so does the harm caused by their misuse.
A gun is just a stronger slingshot, but you'd be an idiot to give one to an eight year old child who was slingshotting windows, dogs, and cats.
The fallacy of using Quality statements in order to negate Quantity.
An earthquake of level 10.0 is just like an earthquake of level 4.0, only longer and bigger.
A flooding is just like normal raining, only with more rain.
In most situations a big change in quantity makes all the difference, like in this case.
If police forces analyze 20000 people a year,mostly criminals in criminal scenes, it is completely different than analyzing millions, mostly normal people.