CathInfo.com

.
From the linked site:
.
Facial recognition technology—that is, computer programs that can identify a person based on a photograph or video still—may be able to pick up where other types of forensic evidence leave off. Imagine that Darrin had been caught on film breaking into any one of the three homes he was ultimately found to have entered. Simply introducing a still image from this video in court would suffer from some of the same deficiencies as DNA evidence, because a jury would be equally unable to distinguish Darrin Fernandez from Damien Fernandez. But a computer program can tell the difference; facial recognition technology can even distinguish between identical twins.¹⁵ Had Darrin been caught on film, facial recognition evidence might have positively identified him and saved significant prosecutorial and judicial resources.¹⁶
Facial recognition technology is currently in widespread use and has significant private and governmental applications.¹⁷ The technology is already used to identify suspects and solve crimes.¹⁸ As higher-quality cameras become more cost effective and facial recognition algorithms become more accurate,¹⁹ law enforcement agencies will seek to use facial recognition evidence for more than just criminal investigation.²⁰ After all, “[some] law enforcement agencies estimate that up to a quarter of complaint cases contain face images of the suspect or an accomplice. This number is significantly higher than for latent fingerprints or DNA samples.”²¹ Prosecutorial use is therefore imminent.
But major hurdles still stand between facial recognition evidence and the courtroom. For instance, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, scientific evidence must be reliable and may require expert testimony to lay a sufficient foundation.²² Because facial recognition evidence is relatively new, criminal defendants will likely challenge its reliability.²³
In addition to challenging facial recognition evidence under the rules of evidence, criminal defendants may also invoke their constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause to keep such evidence out of court. This is especially likely given the Supreme Court’s recent strengthening of the protections provided by the Confrontation Clause, a major shift that began with Crawford v. Washington²⁴ in 2004.²⁵

Klas...i thought Sean was referring to doing the same thing on Paul VI.  Isn't that what his link is about? A Paul VI double?

Facial recognition technology is light years ahead today compared to the time of [...]