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

581–590 of 636 posts

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

#581

Post by cma »

waterhouse wrote: post #319
cma wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; Sounds like speech suppression with force because (later in the quote) the speech may later give way t…

As you say, it's because the speech may later give way to force. It does go farther than American free speech law permits: the latter draws the line at something like "threats of immediate criminal action", whereas this would attack "propagating ideologies that one thinks will eventually lead the followers to criminal action". There are certainly deep problems with potential implementation here: e.g. the main America…

I think we can have stronger protections in the US, while keeping it within existing frameworks. Why is it constitutionally ok to give mega corporations strong protections against slander backed by the state who will enforce the ruling, but protection of ethnic groups from slander is constitutionally off limits? It doesn't follow from the constitution.

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

#582

Post by projectazorian »

Bender wrote: post #485

Who needs the vans when one has Tesla's roaming the streets and parked in random places? Those things have a myriad of cameras. What stops Telsa from providing access to (insert highest paying agencies and/or companies) ? Surely by now some other modern cars have followed this pattern. There's even a camera pointed at the drivers face. It's only a matter of time before they have fast uplinks to Starlink. I have to as…

They're already doing this so that the feds can slap terrorism charges on people who vandalize Teslas.

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

#583

Post by nradov »

Xss3 wrote: post #523
falleng0d wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both things can be true at the same time, is not laughable at all. Germany can be unsafe and US too to the extent they need national guard to get back control

How can geemany be considered unsafe to the average american? The homicide and violent crime rate in the US is 10x higher than germany, even in the quiet and posh parts of the USA the murder rate is insanely high compared to anywhere in germany.

Nonsense. The murder rate in most of the USA is similar to Germany. My small city has literally zero murders most years. The vast majority of violent crime happens in few cities such as St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington DC. And then it's only in a handful of neighborhoods within those cities. We should fix those places but basic safety isn't something that most Americans have to worry about.

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

#584

Post by selfmodruntime »

PeterStuer wrote: post #381
kombine wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was taking an intercity coach to Glasgow recently and a teenage kid was on his phone browsing social media without headphones. I made a comment that he should use headphones or turn the volume off. He got defensive and angry. I did not to escalate, and put my earplugs on. I do believe certain parcels of the society need to be restrained.

Go to any hospital waiting room, and 80% of the time there will be a 60+ year old woman playing some inane phone game with the sound on max. Callous anti-social phone behavior isn't just the prerogative of teens.

There will also be the occasional large family cousins and all who tend to be very aggressive.

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

#585

Post by fc417fc802 »

shmeeed wrote: post #564
zosima wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this attitude. Private parties are me and you. I have many interests and ideas, and now many of those have been forbidden for no discernible reason, while the government is still allowed to spy on us to their hearts content. I can't really begin to fathom how this is good.

"Private parties" are _not_ me and you. _I_ can't begin to fathom how you come to believe you are, unless you consider yourself a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, held back from success only by all this legislative overreach. "Private parties" are mighty multinational enterprises with essentially limitless pockets, entities whose factual power and political influence rivals most governments. Countries all over th…

Private parties are quite literally me and you in addition to large multinational corporations. If you think large multinationals need to be restricted then just say that directly instead of putting forward nonsensical semantic arguments.

> I, for one, don't want my biometric data in your system without my explicit consent.

If it's a single individual watching (for example) the sidewalk in front of his house and not disseminating the data in any way then what does it matter? Where is the potential downside? There are plenty of neighborhoods with at least a few retirees sitting staring out the front window for multiple hours each day.

As far as I can tell in the vast majority of cases surveillance only becomes problematic when both ubiquitous and centralized.

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

#586

Post by youngtaff »

miningape wrote: post #506
youngtaff wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t believe everything you read in the Daily Mail or that comes out of Farage or Yaxley-Lennon‘s mouth

"I wouldn’t believe everything you read in the BBC or that comes out of Starmer or Blair's mouth." How about instead of attacking credentials we attack the arguments, you know, with evidence? Or, if your best defence is saying "your ideas/evidence come from unsavoury sources (to me)" maybe your positions are more reflective of your own biases than reality.

The poster implied there is an active cover up whereas the case went to court, was prosecuted and became the subject of a judge led enquiry

The accusation that immigrant men from Muslim backgrounds are sex offenders is a well worn trope pushed by the far right and people like Farage and Yaxley-Lennon

If you actually look at crime statistics in the UK sex offenders, including grooming gangs are overwhelming white men — if you look closer you often find that a reasonable proportion of people on the far-right have convictions for sex offences

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

#587

Post by projectazorian »

burkaman wrote: post #579
projectazorian wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. My city did a deal with Hyperloop to build an express airport train instead of contracting with a European or Japanese company. Hyperloop pulled out and now there is no train, what a surprise. You might ask "why don't they just re-bid the contract?" Answer: The new 'progressive' city government is opposed to building a train for 'rich people' since there's already a non-express metro that goes through some of th…

Are you talking about Chicago? An express train sounds great, they should absolutely build one, but I think you're being a little harsh on the existing train. By America's (very low) standards it is quite convenient. It is already much faster and cheaper than driving, I have never even considered taking an Uber and I'm not sure it would be worth paying much more for an express train.

Correct, Chicago. The city's even already bored the station downtown as part of another project, so there's a massive underground cavern in the middle of downtown currently going unused.

The last time I took the Blue Line to the airport it was indeed fast and convenient - but dealing with luggage was kind of annoying, and there was a guy smoking weed on the train. If I were traveling for business there's no way I would use the Blue Line unless it was peak rush hour, and indeed most business travelers don't. Getting weed smoke on your work clothes is a less than ideal way to start a trip, nor is getting sweaty in your work clothes from hauling luggage around the station.

Thus the case for an express train - it would capture those price insensitive business travelers. You could charge $20 a ticket and it would still be a significant savings over Uber. Heathrow Express in London is like this and it seems to work well.

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

#588

Post by chongli »

arrowsmith wrote: post #473
chongli wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the system (the police in this casse) is what it does. Nope. That's an ideology, not a statement of fact. It completely negates the possibility that systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose.

"systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose" Er, that's exactly what "the purpose of a system is what it does" means.

No, “the purpose of a system is what it does” implies that the original intent of the creators of a system was for it to become corrupted.

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

#589

Post by arrowsmith »

chongli wrote: post #588
arrowsmith wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"systems can become corrupted (or simply fail) and no longer work towards their original purpose" Er, that's exactly what "the purpose of a system is what it does" means.

No, “the purpose of a system is what it does” implies that the original intent of the creators of a system was for it to become corrupted.

That's one way to read the literal meaning of the words, but it's not what the phrase means as originally intended.

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

#590

Post by nradov »

cma wrote: post #581
waterhouse wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you say, it's because the speech may later give way to force. It does go farther than American free speech law permits: the latter draws the line at something like "threats of immediate criminal action", whereas this would attack "propagating ideologies that one thinks will eventually lead the followers to criminal action". There are certainly deep problems with potential implementation here: e.g. the main America…

I think we can have stronger protections in the US, while keeping it within existing frameworks. Why is it constitutionally ok to give mega corporations strong protections against slander backed by the state who will enforce the ruling, but protection of ethnic groups from slander is constitutionally off limits? It doesn't follow from the constitution.

Huh? Have you even read the Constitution? This has nothing to do with slander.
Post reply on HN