How do they enforce this on people wearing hijabs or other religios clothing that covers the face?
Hijabs do not cover the face. A niqab or burqa would, but the former are very rare in the West, and the latter virtually nonexist.
[deleted]
Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
101–110 of 190 posts
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#102I wonder if you could copyright your face and then use the law against the law. DMCA takedowns etc etc.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that, ultimately and generally, the government does what a majority of people wants (or at least tolerates). Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms? The only answer I can arrive at is "because it doesn't inconvenience people enough to do something about it". Protesting against something takes a lot of energy, and inconveniencing you only a little (or very much but extremely rarely) doesn't make most…
The way I see it is that our systems became so complex that we lost sight of what's good for us, as individual and as a group. Most people are too busy to even acknowledge these issues. When you're barely able to financially take care of your family or when you're too deep in the consumerism game you don't have time for these high level questions. People are more outraged about the latest episode of Game of Thrones t…
> The way I see it is that our systems became so complex that we lost sight of what's good for us, as individual and as a group.
I feel ask though it's more that our systems became so complex that no one, let alone the lay in that specific tech, are even capable of understanding the consequences and what we're loosing.
It's not unreasonable for a lay person to be told about facial recognition and think "well, it's just doing a better job than what a cop would have done anyway" without realizing that it often does worse than a cop statistically and that unlike a cop, all the cameras can be coordinated so that your movements are stored indefinitely and viewable by anyone, something that couldn't happen when a person was looking at people on their beat.
Ditto with online tracking, it's the extent of the ramifications that people don't think/know about. Even then, there are no alternatives that provide the simplicity of communication that Facebook does, so even after something like Cambridge Analytica, most people don't really have options to move away from without completely changing how they socialize, and to be honest, most people don't understand just how much information they leak even still.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#104From 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…
“The guy told them to p off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,”* 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…
This is called selective enforcement and is part of the erosion of the rule of law in the UK. When you have mountains of laws such that most people are always violating them, you can target anyone you don't like. This leads to abuse of power and is formative in the transformation of police from those that uphold the law to thugs. The thugs decide when to punish on whim.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that, ultimately and generally, the government does what a majority of people wants (or at least tolerates). Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms? The only answer I can arrive at is "because it doesn't inconvenience people enough to do something about it". Protesting against something takes a lot of energy, and inconveniencing you only a little (or very much but extremely rarely) doesn't make most…
==Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms?== Fear. Why do people think it is unsafe to walk outside when statistics show us we have never been safer? Why are people afraid of public places when crime is far more likely to happen in the home?
We need to go deeper though. The decrease in perceived safety is, at least in part, due to 24/7 news reporting about violence, crime, terrorism, hate and generally negative topics. Which itself is due to progress in information technology and in the way we make money out of it. There is literally no benefit for the general public in this.
Don't get me wrong, you have all the reasons to fear these things if you live where these things happen, but I'd bet my left hand that most people in 1st world countries ever witness any kind of serious violence.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> because the ratio of rich to poor is better 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.
I'm not sure your theories have a base. Population may not like whats happening, but the peoples will only rise to protest when they feel directly threatened.
People will feel directly threatened if these systems produce too many false positives which result in too many false arrests or "police harassment".
Government and vendors will get away with it by slowly and sporadically deploying these systems until "we" get used to being monitored by these "AI" type systems.
Mildly "sexy" news like this is perfect for letting the people gently feel aware that they are being monitored in this way without being too threatening.
The last thing authorities or vendors want is news that 250 were falsely apprehended because of AI identification with a few citizens getting chased and "accidentally" shot in the process => That would be inescapable-incompetence compounding incompetence after all, reason to take to the streets.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#107I wonder if you could copyright your face and then use the law against the law. DMCA takedowns etc etc.
> use the law against the law
You can only do that if the lawmakers agree.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#108This makes me very sad for many reasons:
* People are losing their freedom of privacy in the name of safety and most accept it. Many are likely unaware at this stage of the trade-off.
* One activist was in presence by happen chance, otherwise this likely would have gone unreported.
* The database _currently_ only keeps peoples data for 30 days. When the UK leaves the EU, this will likely be extended. China has already experienced multiple data breaches.
* It's unclear what data is kept and deleted, I suspect that metadata may be retained indefinitely.
* The money being spent on these systems could be spent getting more officers on the ground. I have no doubt they are sinking millions of pounds into this project.
* The police initially started testing this system illegally, there were no repercussions.
* The majority of people being arrested as a result of this technology are probably not the worst people in society. I believe this will be used to disproportionately target poorer people and petty crimes.
* Telling an officer to "fuck off" or "piss off" is not a crime. It's not an offense to be rude and you certainly shouldn't have to "Wind your neck in" in fear of a public servant.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#109Is there another source for this? I don't even want to visit the Mail's website, let alone read whatever misrepresentation of what actually transpired that they have put down in their article.
Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face
#110For those who prefer not to go to the Daily Mail directly: "Camera cross-checked photos of faces of passers-by against wanted database. One man covered face before officers stopped him and took his picture anyway. He was fined £90 at scene in Romford by police who arrested three other people Police say they know of human rights concerns but want to make London safer"
Technically he was fined for swearing at the police, not for covering his face. If he had said nothing he would not have been fined but might have been searched as the police have the power to stop and search anyone who they have reasonable cause to suspect is acting suspiciously.
If he had remained quiet he would not have been fined for swearing, but he likely would have been fined for something else. It seems pretty clear the intention was to issue a fine, not to reduce swearing.