31–40 of 190 posts
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu...
We don't do this en masse now because "The very thing that makes you invisible to computers makes you glaringly obvious to other humans"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Romford is on the outskirts of London and is not especially wealthy.
Exactly. You don't implement your Baghdad style checkpoints in Manhattan. You do it in the Bronx. The rich (the people who's non-disapproval you need) get told by the official statements (that the newspaper regurgitates) how it's the best thing since sliced bread while not actually being negatively affected by it themselves. The fact that you've got a bunch of rich people who never see the downside of each step towar…
> The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. That's why it's called "erosion of rights" and not "outright nullification of rights". Unfortunately, it works, and it's entirely unsurprising that face surveillance will become normalized.
There's a reason they're doing it in London first. In a wealthy city like London you can get away with going full "law and order" because the ratio of rich to poor is better (i.e more rich people) and the rich generally view this as no threat to them. Then once it's normalized they roll it out to Liverpool, Belfast and everywhere else that the poors are less under the thumb of the government. You see this in the US.…
How do they enforce this on people wearing hijabs or other religios clothing that covers the face?
they would ask them for identification just like they did with this guy
> The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. That's why it's called "erosion of rights" and not "outright nullification of rights". Unfortunately, it works, and it's entirely unsurprising that face surveillance will become normalized.
It's not everyday I quote Ted Kaczynski, but I think he had a valid point when, in his manifesto, he theorise that no amount of regulation is capable of making us safe from technological abuse. 125 - 135 from: https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So... . > It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force an…
Protesting against something takes a lot of energy, and inconveniencing you only a little (or very much but extremely rarely) doesn't make most people's list of priorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wonder how you'd avoid this, even if parliament had the inclination. You need a populace that overwhelmingly believes it is not ok for the government to operate a surveillance dragnet. Then the politicians will do that. The only reason the government doesn't go full Waco on people who haven't paid their parking tickets is because the overwhelming majority of society don't tolerate that. This is also why it's impor…
Ok. I'm a populace (even a plurality, some days) that overwhelmingly believes it is not ok for the government to operate a surveillance dragnet. How does this translate into practicalities? What laws do I want Westminster or London Assembly to enact? The point I was making earlier is that the distinction between dragnet and regular policing is eroding, as this technology becomes widespread. Presumably it's ok for pol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they would ask them for identification just like they did with this guy
What identification exactly? You don't have to own a passport or a drivers license in the UK, nor do we have ID cards.
> The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. That's why it's called "erosion of rights" and not "outright nullification of rights". Unfortunately, it works, and it's entirely unsurprising that face surveillance will become normalized.
There's a reason they're doing it in London first. In a wealthy city like London you can get away with going full "law and order" because the ratio of rich to poor is better (i.e more rich people) and the rich generally view this as no threat to them. Then once it's normalized they roll it out to Liverpool, Belfast and everywhere else that the poors are less under the thumb of the government. You see this in the US.…
I’m not clicking with this theory. I think it’s in cities that are more multicultural and thus have more hostility.
The government can get away with a lot when the people are frustrated about something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they would ask them for identification just like they did with this guy
Of every person wearing a headscarf or veil? And every cyclist wearing a filter mask?