US gives local police a face-scanning app similar to one used by ICE agents

The idea authoritarianism reduces crime or increases efficiency or put more bluntly "at least Mussolini made the trains run on time" is a fallacy. Crime still happens, it's just that those connected to the regime are protected from consequences, see for example the blatant corruption in Russia or the untouchable "Princelings" (CCP officials offspring) in China.

And no, Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time - he took credit for rail improvements started before he took power and then led his country into disastrous wars that destroyed it.

"Decreased crime" under an authoritarian regime is probably only true if you don't consider anything the state does a crime.

Democracies are overwhelmingly the most efficient governments. Look at long-standing democracies and autocracies - which are the most efficient and effective? The least corrupt?

Autocracies are like communist centrally-planned economies. If the autocrat isn't all-knowing and all-good, they can't possibly know enough to run things - or even to make enough decisions to avoid being a bottleneck. One of the great advantages of democracies is that the people affected have power - they have a seat at the table. They know what's going on and what they need. If you want to plan flood relief for a town in Mississippi, ask the people there what the problems are and what they need. If you want to regulate software development, developers get input.

That goes for social, political, financial, economic, foreign affairs, and all other policy.

Regarding crime, the autocrat and servants commit plenty of that. Generally, thieves don't break down your door in the middle of the night, kidnap you, and imprison and torture you for years without trial - or just seize all your assets and prevent you from working. Also, what source do you have on crime levels in autocracies - where could reliable information come from? And as another commenter said, I don't see a correlation between crime and democracy.

(Singapore's very unusual nature makes it a poor example.)

Is reduced crime an upside of authoritarianism? I would argue there are lots of authoritarian and non-authoritarian governments with high and low levels of crime. In research crime tends to be more about the people and culture, not income or government style, and whether a government is hard or easy on crime seems more like a policy decision.

I feel there's probably a formal academic topology for this, but it seems on one end you have party-dominant or single party authoritarianism (Singapore arguably) and on the other end you have cult of personality style. The former is often more stable and functional than the latter, but neither guarantees optimal decisions. And some regimes like North Korea give you the downsides of both!

So is Switzerland.

Correlation != causation.

The government is hyper efficient right now. The only efficiency guaranteed under authoritarianism is the will of the authoritarian gets executed without any checks or balances, which is very efficient. Trump wants tariffs, Trump gets tariffs, despite laws saying he can't. Trump wants troops in the cities, Trump gets troops in the cities despite laws saying he can't. Trump wants to bomb boats, Trump gets to bomb boats -- no committees, no votes, no reviews, no assessments -- just exploding boats. Trump wants to bulldoze the Whitehouse, well then by God it's gone the next day. Talk about efficient!

That this doesn't translate into benefits for you personally or the citizens generally does not mean the system is not working very efficiently right now.

"Efficient" is a word that has a positive connotation, but in the context of authoritarianism it means something very very bad for liberty, freedom, civil rights, and democracy -- all things that get in the way of authoritarian efficiency.

I would encourage someone who wants to dig deeper to FOIA accordingly using https://www.muckrock.com/ ; think of it as being part investigator, part archeologist, part systems analyst.

Resources:

https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/police-data-documentation-p...

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2016/jul/12/five-easy...

> However had, what legal basis would they have to know who is who at all times, without suspicion of a crime?

The following is a genuine question, not a statement: Would known statistics/tax info for a particular region pass "reasonable suspicion"?

Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I don't share your optimism.

Finger prints require physical contact, facial recognition can be done at a distance and dragnet style. Think Flock Group/Safety ALPRs (automated license plate recognition), but by face instead of license plates.

They have faces for every US passport and for every/many[1] REAL ID drivers license. They only have fingerprints for some people that have been arrested and aliens that were admitted into the country.

[1] I'm not sure if REAL ID means the feds get access to driving license details or if there's just a lot of states that share this data voluntarily.

I think you are right that fingerprints are much easier to read and compare. I do believe it is for matching against images from social media, driver’s license, passports etc.

The government likely has pictures of many more people than they have fingerprints of.

Cynically, I imagine that a more difficult and less accurate system is desirable insofar as it can launder criminal behavior as computer error and absolve the perpetrator of whatever kidnapping / assault charges they might otherwise face.

Ostensibly, if ICE are acting within the scope of their duties, there are limits to the ways in which they can be charged with violations of state laws. An baroque system of identification allows them to claim they were acting in that scope.

In this way, it is perhaps similar to the widespread acceptance of drug-sniffing dogs which are no better than a coin flip (see Florida v. Harris, for example), and which can be trained to signal whether drugs are present or not.

The difference is that breathalyzers need to be regularly calibrated, otherwise they give wrong readings. There's no calibration needed for these systems once setup. And if they are wrong, the police will catch the wrong guy and end up leaving him once confirming his ID. I'm not that is not a problem, but it's not something that can be challenged in a court.

In the US, whether you're legally required to identify yourself depends on the situation and the state:

"Stop and identify" states: If police have reasonable suspicion that you're involved in a crime, you can be required to state your name. Refusal can result in arrest.

Non–stop-and-identify states: You generally don't have to provide your name unless you're lawfully detained or arrested.

It's not illegal everywhere to refuse, but, as you said it can escalate the situation.

However, from a civil liberties perspective, people do explicitly choose to refuse in order to assert their rights and/or protest unlawful stops. You can certainly choose to be a high-IQ person, always give your name, and contribute to the eroding of your own rights over time. Face scanning tech just removes that option and automatically eliminates those civil liberties.

> it's potential to be scaled into massive comprehensive dragnet surveillance

that potential has become kinetic, we're living it right now

You’re talking about people who are breaking into U.S. citizens’ homes and forcibly detaining them for extended periods of time or shooting them. There isn’t a magic phrase which helps someone who isn’t white and affluent get treated legally.

It's because most police officers voted for this and this is exactly what they wanted.

Sexually assault someone, that's just due process MAGA-style. Good luck litigating that from Alligator Auschwitz or Sudan.