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

London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

btp.police.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 158 posts

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#131

Post by foldr »

noman-land wrote: post #98
foldr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work? Easiest way to stop protests is to block off the area of the planned protest and arrest people who try to enter it. It’s not clear to me how facial recognition on the tube would help from a practical point or view. Also, this seems to just be a trial expanding existing time and location scoped deployments of live facial recognition into a new environment, rather than a trial run for always-on liv…

The easiest way to stop protests is to listen to your constituents and implement the changes they desire. That's what a representative democracy is.

I don’t have a problem with protests, but clearly there’s no one set of laws or policies that will be agreeable to everyone. Think fox hunting, abortion, trans rights, etc. etc. There will always be protests in a representative democracy.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#132

Post by foldr »

_heimdall wrote: post #128
dofm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about grounds to arrest them, it's about practicality. If you need to arrest someone in London (someone who might be about to cause harm) then there's a very good chance they will go through a tube station, and they tend to have relatively few, easily controlled exits. Most tube stations have two or less. A few high profile tube stations occasionally have armed police presence. But I think the idea that face…

What do you mean by "need to arrest someone"? Would that be for someone who already committed a crime and has a warrant, or one who cops think may commit a crime in the future?

We’re talking about the practicalities of arresting protestors and whether or not face recognition on the tube would be a practical aid to police officers for this sort of purpose. Who should or shouldn’t be arrested is a separate question (and no-one here is suggesting that peaceful protestors should be arrested).

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#133

Post by Markoff »

coldtea wrote: post #100
Markoff wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH wrapped baseball bat is still a baseball bat, just because it's wrapped it doesn't mean you can't use it plus the beginning of the video was missing and it was clearly during some protest but I agree being stabbed should be legal for victim /s

It was not during some protest, many people of all colors nearby supported the person being arrested and told the policeman he's doing a stupid mistake. Worse is that it's one of a long run of infuriating police state blunders (to put it mildly).

so people in UK streets normally carry on their shoulder 2 meters tall cross?

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#134

Post by dingaling »

smurda wrote: post #31

The UK already has so much CCTV. Some believe it reduces drug-related, vehicle, and property crime, but most agree is has virtually no effect on violent crime ( https://www.college.police.uk/research/crime-reduction-toolk... ). Even if this initiative is effective at reducing crime, I don't want to lose privacy or see a chilling effect in society where people are afraid because they know they're being watched.

> The UK already has so much CCTV.

But most of it, the overwhelming majority, comprises standalone installations at best networked into a corporate HQ but most commonly just recorded on site.

It's not like in police drama programmes where they can switch from the camera in the Tube station to the one in the newsagent outside for seamless real-time tracking.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#135

Post by dofm »

_heimdall wrote: post #128
dofm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about grounds to arrest them, it's about practicality. If you need to arrest someone in London (someone who might be about to cause harm) then there's a very good chance they will go through a tube station, and they tend to have relatively few, easily controlled exits. Most tube stations have two or less. A few high profile tube stations occasionally have armed police presence. But I think the idea that face…

What do you mean by "need to arrest someone"? Would that be for someone who already committed a crime and has a warrant, or one who cops think may commit a crime in the future?

Either. Where there is a need.

The latter is legitimate, isn't it? Do we not anticipate trying to arrest people who might be in the process of committing a terror attack, on the balance of evidence about their conduct? Or are we just going to wait?

Not to say that hasn't gone wrong (infamously and tragically, although that was largely a failure of conventional surveillance) but one key part of mass surveillance policing is arresting people who are clearly about to do a thing.

That might indeed be disruptive protest where it is illegal — for example if you know someone is intending to deface a painting or a monument, or has been planning to attend a protest to disrupt it.

I think people look at face detection policing in this context and imagine thoughtcrime, when the reality is e.g. finding a disturbed person who has been doing a dry run on pushing a stranger off a tube train platform (a real problem that seems to happen every couple of years), catching someone who has been reported sexually assaulting fellow passengers or who has violently assaulted another passenger or someone above ground (a regular problem), trying to disrupt county-lines drug distribution etc. (absolutely constant), or, heaven help us, finding someone who has been spotted at a national railway station with someone on terror watchlists who has then disappeared into the underground.

London Underground isn't a thing that can be effectively managed with ordinary policing. It has 272 stations, over 70 in central London alone. During rush hour there are up to half a million people in that system at any one time. Tube exits are choke points.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#136

Post by _heimdall »

dofm wrote: post #135
_heimdall wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "need to arrest someone"? Would that be for someone who already committed a crime and has a warrant, or one who cops think may commit a crime in the future?

Either. Where there is a need. The latter is legitimate, isn't it? Do we not anticipate trying to arrest people who might be in the process of committing a terror attack, on the balance of evidence about their conduct? Or are we just going to wait? Not to say that hasn't gone wrong (infamously and tragically, although that was largely a failure of conventional surveillance) but one key part of mass surveillance polic…

I don't know English law, and I'm american so I have a bent towards protecting freedoms. That said, no I don't see it as necessary to arrest someone before they do anything wrong.

There's a gray area for sure, and in the US you can, for example, be charged with conspiracy to commit murder without actually getting to that end goal. I'm always uncomfortable with how a court decides to allow a trial in such a case, though if someone has actively been surveiling their target, collecting materials or weapons, and ideally documenting their intentions somehow then I do understand why most would consider that itself punishable.

If a person without a warrant gets off the tube and walks in a general direction of a protest, I wouldn't see any grounds for arrest. I'm sure there's still gray area there, say they're carrying smoke grenades or flash bangs or something - though in that case I'd assume the potential crime is possessing those items rather than walking in a direction.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#138

Post by dofm »

_heimdall wrote: post #136
dofm wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either. Where there is a need. The latter is legitimate, isn't it? Do we not anticipate trying to arrest people who might be in the process of committing a terror attack, on the balance of evidence about their conduct? Or are we just going to wait? Not to say that hasn't gone wrong (infamously and tragically, although that was largely a failure of conventional surveillance) but one key part of mass surveillance polic…

I don't know English law, and I'm american so I have a bent towards protecting freedoms. That said, no I don't see it as necessary to arrest someone before they do anything wrong. There's a gray area for sure, and in the US you can, for example, be charged with conspiracy to commit murder without actually getting to that end goal. I'm always uncomfortable with how a court decides to allow a trial in such a case, thou…

> If a person without a warrant gets off the tube and walks in a general direction of a protest, I wouldn't see any grounds for arrest.

The police don't manage mass protests this way either. If they want to stop you joining a disruptive protest they just cordon off streets, close tube exits, stand in the way and tell you to turn back.

But severely disruptive micro-protests are now a significant problem in London; I am quite relaxed about the idea that someone known to be planning to seriously disrupt might get tracked to their destination, and I suspect so are they, or they aren't very serious about it.

I think people from the USA really misunderstand how policing works here. When we say we are "policed by consent" it is taken pretty seriously.

Back when I was a student, this idea of facial recognition was only a glimmer of possibility and the idea of all of this would have got my freedom fighter hackles up.

But if you've ever been in a tube station, one of the deep lines, when they've had to close exits and you're one of thousands of people who need to get out, you realise that these are high-pressure environments where even British reserve and fairness begin to fray. They are very vulnerable places. So I look at this plan and I am like… nope, doesn't bother me. Getting in and getting out at rush hour bothers me.

I am not without my concerns about the mobile recognition vans; I think there is a risk that they have a chilling effect on gatherings that is disproportionate. I dislike that concept in much the same way that I dislike our regional police force's tendency to get the helicopter out when a bit more road policing might do the job.

But inside the tube? Nope, facial recognition seems like a pretty worthwhile tool, not least because it could be so efficiently deployed.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#139

Post by pkul »

sheauwn wrote: post #68
pkul wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puritans?

They are likely referring to religious fundamentalists, mostly evangelical Christians. Puritans is a reference to an older christian fundamentalist group in the US that now have a connotation as extreme in their views.

Right idea, wrong sect I guess

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#140

Post by singleshot_ »

dofm wrote: post #135
_heimdall wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "need to arrest someone"? Would that be for someone who already committed a crime and has a warrant, or one who cops think may commit a crime in the future?

Either. Where there is a need. The latter is legitimate, isn't it? Do we not anticipate trying to arrest people who might be in the process of committing a terror attack, on the balance of evidence about their conduct? Or are we just going to wait? Not to say that hasn't gone wrong (infamously and tragically, although that was largely a failure of conventional surveillance) but one key part of mass surveillance polic…

> The latter is legitimate, isn't it?

No, arresting people for crimes they haven’t committed is horrifying and bizarre.

Post reply on HN