11–20 of 190 posts
From the Independent coverage: > The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods. > “The guy told them to p * off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.” I live close to Romford, and…
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.
From the Independent coverage: > The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods. > “The guy told them to p * off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.” I live close to Romford, and…
Accepting such a fine is voluntary, he could go to court and defend himself instead. I'd be surprised if some organisation or another didn't offer to pay his costs?
How do they enforce this on people wearing hijabs or other religios clothing that covers the face?
> 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.
You see this in the US. Boston, DC, New York, etc are littered with surveillance cameras and ALPRs. Once it's normalized they'll roll it out to places like New Bedford, Norlfolk and Buffalo and all the other places where the government (as an organization, not as individuals) feels its respected less.
> 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.
Would private face recognition be banned too? Very soon a CCTV setup without face recognition will be out of date.
Computer vision-ey stuff is maturing and the list of "trivial" is getting long. It'll probably be implemented in most camera applications. Face recognition, object recognition, all manner of classification.
Once your phone organizes and hyperlinks photos this way, it'll seem weird to deny police.
I'm not denying there're major rights issues associated with this, just that the technology is set to become so ambient.
From the Independent coverage: > The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods. > “The guy told them to p * off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.” I live close to Romford, and…
This is a common use of laws in the United Kingdom. They put lots of laws on the books around trivial things that they almost never enforce on their own, but then which officers arbitrarily use in "convenient" situations like this. The average person swearing in the street will not be accosted, someone arguing with a cop who wants to make a point will.
> 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.
I wonder how you'd avoid this, even if parliament had the inclination. Would private face recognition be banned too? Very soon a CCTV setup without face recognition will be out of date. Computer vision-ey stuff is maturing and the list of "trivial" is getting long. It'll probably be implemented in most camera applications. Face recognition, object recognition, all manner of classification. Once your phone organizes a…
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 important to not let this kind of crap be legitimized in the public's mind.
Unfortunately it looks like that ship as long since sailed as far as a damp rock off the coast of France is concerned. With all the crap that's being dredged up as a result of Brexit there's still hope for the Irish saying they see what Britain has and they don't want any.
> 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.
I wonder how you'd avoid this, even if parliament had the inclination. Would private face recognition be banned too? Very soon a CCTV setup without face recognition will be out of date. Computer vision-ey stuff is maturing and the list of "trivial" is getting long. It'll probably be implemented in most camera applications. Face recognition, object recognition, all manner of classification. Once your phone organizes a…
> 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.…