141–150 of 190 posts
I personally don't see any issue with this. If you want absolute privacy, than stay at home. If you want absolute freedom, than go live somewhere where nobody else lives. Society runs on compromises: your freedon to swing your fist ends where my nose begins (and viceversa); your privacy ends where my safety is concerned (and viceversa).
If you want privacy, then don’t post online.
I personally don't see any issue with this. If you want absolute privacy, than stay at home. If you want absolute freedom, than go live somewhere where nobody else lives. Society runs on compromises: your freedon to swing your fist ends where my nose begins (and viceversa); your privacy ends where my safety is concerned (and viceversa).
> 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.
It's not everyday I quote Ted Kaczynski, but I think he had a valid point when, in his manifesto, he theorise that no amount of regulation is capable of making us safe from technological abuse. 125 - 135 from: https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So... . > It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force an…
Full disclosure: I'm a gun owner. But I'd swap the second amendment for a data privacy amendment in a heartbeat.
Is 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wonder how you'd avoid this, even if parliament had the inclination. 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 impor…
Ok. I'm a populace (even a plurality, some days) that overwhelmingly believes it is not ok for the government to operate a surveillance dragnet. How does this translate into practicalities? What laws do I want Westminster or London Assembly to enact? The point I was making earlier is that the distinction between dragnet and regular policing is eroding, as this technology becomes widespread. Presumably it's ok for pol…
I think (in London at least), there are so many cameras that we have no idea which ones just record and which have facial recognition capabilities.For all I know, when I come out Waterloo Tube Station into the rail station, the camera at the top of the escalator could be face-id'ing me.
If the police stand there pointing a camera at me, I'll naturally be suspicious, and yes, defensive.
I wonder if you could copyright your face and then use the law against the law. DMCA takedowns etc etc.
It's not an artistic work, and there are broad rights to images in public that preclude you from making a work on your face to prevent imaging of it. It's a nice idea but it would allow lots of law breaking of things worked that way. Eg paint something on your car, now police can't capture you on speed camera!!11one.
Way things are going, how long until we have camera technology as CCTV that is comparable to Holywood camera's - certainly the standard today is up there with 80's offering.
Might even come a time when you can do a film in places like London without needing any cameras as you can just ab-use the data protection act to get copies of any footage your in and get all the camera angles and video you need to edit into a film. Kinda doable now, though not all cameras are 4k and well light area's. But certainly doable.
One interesting legal aspect about CCTV in the UK - the only camera's that are allowed to record audio are the ones located outside police stations. Which is reassuring as with mic-arrays - intrusion into privacy and indeed voice recognition would be far greater than any CCTV/facial recognition. But that is one to watch and keep an eye upon as I'm sure that will change/erode over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ..but want to make London safer. By the police stopping you, taking your picture, and trying to match your face to a list of criminals with 96% of false positive match rate.
Hmm, it's not like they go "positive match, right bake 'em away toys ". The officer will analyse the match and on their confirmation that match means there's reasonable cause to question you, ask for ID, or whatever.
I regularly see people going around with their faces covered in Portland. For example, guy in dark clothes on a bmx bike riding down east bank esplanade. I assume that these folks have warrants. But I am not aware of any deployed facial recognition in Portland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question was well-answered by the quote you are replying to. Put more succinctly: It is the full time job of law enforcement to use these tools to solve crimes. Even if literally everyone protests them next month, if you wait 10 years, people will have moved on with their lives, and it will be implemented anyway. Here is a concrete example: Back in high school, a holocaust survivor visited our class. We were tol…
> That difference no longer exists in the US in any practical way because technology has obsoleted the legal mechanism of “you can’t ask for my drivers license without probable cause”. Are you sure this is quite as absolute and one-way as you’re saying here? ID isn’t required by government to be driven, use public transport, fly on private aircraft, use boats, etc. Sure as a practical matter in the US non-car options…
If the true purpose of a drivers license was public safety there are surely a large number of people who wouldn't be permitted to operate a motor vehicle. Or at the very least we would be required to periodically prove our competency.
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…