outrageous
Just because something can be done technically, does not mean that it should. And just because there are some benefits in an action does not mean that the action is beneficial. Governments do have a responsibility to take measures to keep the public safe. But they need to balance this with their responsibility to restrain the excesses of future governments.
Some people will take a mile when you give an inch. What do you think they will do if you give a mile? Will try say 'great we're happy' or will they push for 2, or 10 miles.
It'll start with crowds and terrorism suspects on a TLA watchlist. Who can argue right? Then we'll add pedophiles hanging around playgrounds. No arguments right? Then bikies, known drug dealers and of course, with this mob, Centrelink recipients. At some point you are going to be sitting on the bench in the park minding your own business when some G4S / Wilson guard crash tackles you, serving an infringement notice because your dog shat on the grass and you have an overdue copy of 1984 from the local library.
Hey if you have such fancy AI, why not use them to highlight unusual packages being carried into the stadium/train/area of risk. This proposal has real consequences for freedom of association. It also has consequences for journalists when their source can be identified. Turnbull of all people should get what that means *cough* spycatcher *cough*.
So yes, there are some positive outcomes to safety but overall this would seem to me a dangerous idea. Let's not throw the baby with the bathwater. If you want to save some lives, maybe try taxing sugar drinks or banning fast food advertising during children's programs or phasing out diesel vehicles in cities or doing a buyback for the old diesel trucks that emit tens or hundreds of times more dangerous NOx particles than their modern equivalents, or coal, or say that all cars sold from 2019 must have active collision avoidance and at least 6 airbags fitted. Any of those will save an order of magnitude more lives.