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

611–620 of 636 posts

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

#611

Post by philipallstar »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #464
philipallstar wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> like just looking at the UK, they e.g. "thanked" Alan Turing for his war contributions by driving him into Suicide because he was gay Well. Maybe[0]. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092

Just because there is a chance he did not kill himself, that does not negate the fact that homosexuality was illegal, and that the state expended resources to prosecute him! British people now overwhelmingly see such policies as reprehensible, regardless of who might or might not have considered suicide because of them.

You're countering things I didn't say.

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

#613

Post by pmarreck »

xg15 wrote: post #230
pmarreck wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still arguably complies with the Paradox of Tolerance. Terrorists (as well as their supporters) are intolerant and non-pluralist. Therefore, for a pluralist society to survive, it must be intolerant of one thing- intolerance.

The paradox of tolerance isn't wrong, but it's also invoked awfully quickly in the last years, often by people who weren't tolerant to begin with. I'd at least like to know who defines who is a "Pluralist" and who is a "Terrorist". Also: The paradox of tolerance can legitimately be used to call intolerant behaviors of individuals. When you use it to define entire population groups as "intolerant", and therefore not w…

> When you use it to define entire population groups as "intolerant", and therefore not worth of protection, you have joined the side that you ostensibly want to fight against.

Suppose there was an organization that had written by-laws which were not permitted to be changed but which demanded adherence (on pain of death), including never leaving the organization. Also suppose that most of the members of that organization collectively decided not to adhere to all of its rules (some were considered incompatible with "progress")... but some continued to. And others sometimes began to, but only under stress, because the by-laws book (which, again, cannot be changed, on pain of death) made NO clarification on scope of application, and people were free to interpret the by-laws literally.

Why would you not judge that organization, given that its by-laws are its core? Why would you make special exceptions for ANY organization (or its members), here?

I mean, objectively-speaking, if we weren't reflexively defending the org we're of course discussing, it sounds like a dystopian science-fiction novel. (If I'm being honest, it sounds A LOT like Warhammer, actually.)

Here's a fun thing to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

"With few exceptions, Islamic revelations do not state which Quranic verses or hadith have been abrogated, and Muslim exegetes and jurists have disagreed over which and how many hadith and verses of the Quran are recognized as abrogated, with estimates varying from less than ten to over 500."

Also note that naskh tends to recognize later passages as overriding earlier passages. Guess which ones are the more violent ones...

See a problem, yet? Please don't gaslight me into not seeing one.

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

#614

Post by pmarreck »

HPsquared wrote: post #515
xg15 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paradox of tolerance isn't wrong, but it's also invoked awfully quickly in the last years, often by people who weren't tolerant to begin with. I'd at least like to know who defines who is a "Pluralist" and who is a "Terrorist". Also: The paradox of tolerance can legitimately be used to call intolerant behaviors of individuals. When you use it to define entire population groups as "intolerant", and therefore not w…

"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception."

Exceptions are hypocrisy, by definition.

If you need exceptions, abandon the rule, because it is no longer a rule, it is just a discriminatingly applied proscription.

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

#615

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.

And if you want statistics

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/14/grooming-gangs...

3.7% of sexual abuse cases involved group based abuse

Asian or British Asian people account for 5% of offenders while making up 9% of the British populatiin

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

#616

Post by coldtea »

nosignono wrote: post #220
coldtea wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the people suffering the consequences of illegal immigration today performed that colonialism? Not even their ancestors at colonial times benefitted much from it: the industrial working class of Britain was in dire position despite Britain being a colonial Empire. That money and power went to the ruling classes and their middle class bootlickers.

No, but they benefitted from the colonialism and fight efforts to return those benefits to the colonized. We're not talking about something that happened thousands of years ago here.

>We're not talking about something that happened thousands of years ago here.

I'm not talking about that happened thousands of years ago either. I'm talking about the conditions of the working and poor classes when Britain was a colonial superpower, like througout the 19th century. Hell, even post WWII most of Britain working classes were living very modestly, in wretched wretched council houses, and with low means.

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

#617

Post by coldtea »

nosignono wrote: post #595
OhioMan2943 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they ask to benefit from it? Being nice to everyone and accepting mass immigration aren't the same thing.

Generalize this line of thought. "A thief stole an iphone and dropped it on my doorstep. I kept it, despite knowing it was stolen, because I did not ask the thief to steal it for me". It's very silly on the small scale. It's no less silly on the large scale, you are simply more accustomed to the cultural understanding the colonialism is not something you have any responsibility for.

Generalize this futher. "So now it's only logical that the children of the owner of the phone should get to stay in my house".

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

#618

Post by In5an1ty »

forgotoldacc wrote: post #458
Shank wrote: post #22

The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

In some ways, it's far exceeded China. China is strict with people rioting or complaining a little too much about the government, but they don't lock people up for saying general no no words or being too patriotic/nationalistic online. And apparently Chinese courts even limited facial recognition (no clue how it'll work in practice though). [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/china-says-facial-recogni...

Actually, there is no limit on facial recognition in China, government uses it, universities use it, even middle schools use it. yes there is a consent form for u to sign and you can refuse to sign it, but then lots of trouble come: e.g. you need facial recognition to enter school, so now since you didnt sign the consent form, you need to spend half an hour or more arguing with the security guard.

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

#619

Post by In5an1ty »

forgotoldacc wrote: post #458
Shank wrote: post #22

The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

In some ways, it's far exceeded China. China is strict with people rioting or complaining a little too much about the government, but they don't lock people up for saying general no no words or being too patriotic/nationalistic online. And apparently Chinese courts even limited facial recognition (no clue how it'll work in practice though). [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/china-says-facial-recogni...

And when it comes to online behavior: 1. governments do monitor citizen's words online, like in QQ groups (something like slack / discord). 2. In most circumstances, complaining too much or even curse the country will not be punished, only those who take action in reality will be sent to prison, e.g. organizing demonstrations. 3. But discussing about things like how to build a bomb will lead to a conversation between you and the police. I know these because I have experienced all these kinds of things in China. However, most (at least 80% of my acquaintance) do NOT care about this and support these policies. (To be honest, I personally also do not care about this kind of policy —— as long as the government does not raise taxes, I and most chinese do not care where the tax goes.)
Post reply on HN