Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

news.sky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 636 posts

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#171

Post by grepnork »

jadamson wrote: post #165
mytailorisrich wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are in scope but a "small community forum" has nothing to do but to fill and keep a few self-assessments just in case. There is no requirement to implement age verification across the board (hence why current official guidelines target only porn sites in relation to age verification).

> a few self-assessments just in case Ah right, just a couple of forms how bad can it possi... > Step 1: identify the 17 kinds of priority illegal content that need to be separately assessed lol. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

>identify the 17 kinds of priority illegal content that need to be separately assessed

If you're a site with lots of child users, or if your site holds pornography.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#172

Post by grepnork »

account42 wrote: post #112
grepnork wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overdosing is not a crime, it's not even the job of the Police to help, and possession of drugs is being ignored by most forces because an arrest takes two officers off frontline services for 4 hours, when it will most likely result in a caution.

Why are you making excuses like this? Demand better from the people that would hold authority over you.

They don't have "authority over you" unless you've committed a crime.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#173

Post by jadamson »

grepnork wrote: post #170
jadamson wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those 'niche' forums you mention are explicitly excluded from the Act. No, they are not. > Our research indicates that over 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of the Online Safety Act – from the largest social media platforms to the smallest community forum. We know that new regulation can create uncertainty – particularly for small organisations that may be run on a part time or voluntary basis. htt…

I take it you didn't read your own link, the language used is "services". If you happen to be running the UK panty wetters forum from your own server, then you have a problem, but grandma Jessie's knitting circle is explicitly not in scope. YOUR link goes on to say >the more onerous requirements will fall upon the largest services with the highest reach and/or those services that are particularly high risk. Even if y…

> I take it you didn't read your own link, the language used is "services".

I do love it when people lie and then try to get sassy when called out.

> Even if your forum falls in scope, you're only required to do a risk assessment, if at that stage you are likely to have a lot of underage users, then there might be an issue.

I also like it when people who accuse others of not reading prove themselves incapable of reading - as pointed out below, what I linked is required regardless of the assumed age of your userbase.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#174

Post by mytailorisrich »

jadamson wrote: post #165
mytailorisrich wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are in scope but a "small community forum" has nothing to do but to fill and keep a few self-assessments just in case. There is no requirement to implement age verification across the board (hence why current official guidelines target only porn sites in relation to age verification).

> a few self-assessments just in case Ah right, just a couple of forms how bad can it possi... > Step 1: identify the 17 kinds of priority illegal content that need to be separately assessed lol. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

You are being facetious as "priority illegal contents" are the sort that are the ones that are obviously very unlikely to be encountered on a "normal" small community forum. So this is no more than a box-ticking exercise, really.

Regarding age verification, the OSA is explicit states that if you ban all such content in your T&Cs you do NOT need to have age verification.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#175

Post by const_cast »

johnisgood wrote: post #90

What is the point if there are people on many streets with CCTVs doing drugs openly. I saw a cop simply walk by someone overdosing. Nothing will happen. Again, what is the point exactly? Can anyone tell me? (Again, what is the point of the down-vote? I am asking for people's thought and opinions in the hope of a fruitful conversation).

The point of the police state is not to prevent crime, but to silence dissent and foster cooperation with whatever government propaganda and initiatives are popular at the time.

In fact, often defeating crime is bad for this purpose. If you want to maintain a propaganda machine of an enemy within, you need crime. You might even, say, give drugs to those communities. Looking at you, CIA.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#176

Post by jadamson »

grepnork wrote: post #171
jadamson wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a few self-assessments just in case Ah right, just a couple of forms how bad can it possi... > Step 1: identify the 17 kinds of priority illegal content that need to be separately assessed lol. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

>identify the 17 kinds of priority illegal content that need to be separately assessed If you're a site with lots of child users, or if your site holds pornography.

No. What you have in mind is probably a Children’s Access Assessment[1], which is not what I linked.

[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#177

Post by grepnork »

johnisgood wrote: post #106
grepnork wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overdosing is not a crime, it's not even the job of the Police to help, and possession of drugs is being ignored by most forces because an arrest takes two officers off frontline services for 4 hours, when it will most likely result in a caution.

Here, if the cop sees someone overdosing, they immediately call the ambulance, not walk by and do nothing. Also if someone is overdosing, they are probably possessing. People should do it at home or somewhere else, not on the streets. I don't care if someone is consuming inside their home.

>Here, if the cop sees someone overdosing, they immediately call the ambulance, not walk by and do nothing.

This unevidenced claim is probably nonsense in any case, no police officer would simply walk by. They may very well walk by and talk into their radio to summon the right kind of help, or they may be responding to a higher priority call.

Just because your mate Bob claims they saw something, doesn't mean Bob had any real idea what was going on.

It's like the old saw about a window blind for a hospital ward costing £200, when you can buy one for £20 elsewhere. Thing is the one for £20 doesn't come with a specialised coating that eliminates bacterial or viral spread, or with a bloke that installs it according to the relevant safety regulations, or the supervisor who certifies the installation. It certainly doesn't come with a number you can call to fix the blind if there's a problem with it that includes on site service.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#178

Post by grepnork »

betaby wrote: post #109
grepnork wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity exactly who is this ruling class?

Let's say those people for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partygate

You mean idiots who went to private schools then?

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#179

Post by owisd »

jon-wood wrote: post #44
elric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been doing this for years at protests, using "Forward Intelligence Teams". Even back in 2010 [1] there was an action group trying to protest this growing police-state (Fitwatch). The UK has had an insane number of CCTV cameras for as long as I can remember. Must be a truly dangerous place... https://web.archive.org/web/20100824175032/http://fitwatch.o...

The CCTV cameras I've never really had a problem with - despite what TV shows and films would like to tell you they're not actually a single coherent CCTV network, a vast proportion of them are operated by random shopkeepers, private home owners, and other such places. If they want footage from them the police are typically going to have to send someone out to ask for it, and then hope they haven't reused the storage…

You're mixing your definitions of authoritarian, there's authoritarian in the 'Nolan chart' sense of the word, which just means 'not a Libertarian', which is like 98% of people, which is different to the Hitler meaning of authoritarian, which means 'rejecting democracy'. If the people agree to ban things they don't like, that's democracy, so it's the Nolan kind of authoritarian but not the Hitler kind of authoritarian. Deciding the people shouldn't be allowed to agree collectively to ban certain things is rejecting democracy, so it's Hitler authoritarian but not Nolan authoritarian.

Re: Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England

#180

Post by extraisland »

dathinab wrote: post #146
extraisland wrote: post #36

> The government also insists the tech is independently tested at the National Physical Laboratory, which found the underlying algorithm to be accurate and free of age, gender, or ethnicity-related bias. I feel so much better! /sarcasm How tone deaf can they be? Whenever there are serious privacy concerns about how this sort of technology, you have a statement like attached. It doesn't address what people are worried…

Well there had been system with very high rates of false positives for certain ethnicities which if wide scale deployed would in effect be like systematic harassment of this people. So it is a thing people which in general are okay with mass surveillance might worried about. And convincing the people you have a chance to convince is much more useful the pointlessly trying to convince the people which anyway won't lik…

It reads more like something to appease some media outlets and activist groups than the general public.
Post reply on HN