181–190 of 190 posts
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.
As someone also not interested in giving the Daily Fail/Heil any traffic what-so-ever, I found this : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recogniti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they didn't have reasonable cause.
Actually in England they don't need reasonable grounds. https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rig... > You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that: serious violence could take place you’re carrying a weapon or have used one you’re in a specific location or area
Are the specific locations this applies to defined in law, or can a senior police officer just say "this neighborhood has a lot of criminals; search everyone"?
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is part of why I object to the dilution of the term "right" with the modern, European concept of creating new rights to suit a political agenda. Basic liberties are a very narrow category as laid out in the Bill of Rights. "Owning your data" is not a right in the sense in which your parent comment was speaking, certainly not in the same way as the Right to Bear Arms. In other words, there is a big difference bet…
> European concept of creating new rights to suit a political agenda. Compared to ? The US ? > Right to Bear Arms. Why are Americans so emotional about that ? How is that a basic liberty ? What about the right not to die of diabetes because you can't afford insulin thanks to the unregulated "free market" they call "health industry" ? The right not to have > 70% of your population overweight ? The right to have a prop…
I think it has to do with our nation's history. We never had a feudal system or a monarchy and fought for independence. It's a different culture. It is a basic liberty because it was set out as such as a founding principle of our nation. If you don't believe an armed populace can stop a tyrannical government, visit Vietnam or the middle east.
Health insurance is regulated. Government has no business with obesity rates; are you suggesting a "right to be skinny"? America was not founded as a democracy, but as a modified republic. And spying by 3-letter agencies is horrible, unconstitutional, and ought to be stopped.
I will refrain from responding to your abortion remark, as I think that falls under the "generic flamewar" prohibition of things we are not supposed to discuss, barring an original thought to contribute; and it is not relevant to the article. If you want to debate more on that score, we can do so offline; keybase info is in my profile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is part of why I object to the dilution of the term "right" with the modern, European concept of creating new rights to suit a political agenda. Basic liberties are a very narrow category as laid out in the Bill of Rights. "Owning your data" is not a right in the sense in which your parent comment was speaking, certainly not in the same way as the Right to Bear Arms. In other words, there is a big difference bet…
The distinction only exists because you chose it to. Both were drafted by politicians. The only real difference is one was written hundreds of years ago to address problems that existed then and the other was written for a modern era to address problems we face currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually in England they don't need reasonable grounds. https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rig... > You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that: serious violence could take place you’re carrying a weapon or have used one you’re in a specific location or area
> you’re in a specific location or area Are the specific locations this applies to defined in law, or can a senior police officer just say "this neighborhood has a lot of criminals; search everyone"?
[1] - https://twitter.com/brumpolice/status/1100765101156634624
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).
Even if I accept your premise that privacy from facial recognition in public is to your safety as swinging my fist at your nose is to your right to not be assaulted (I don't), I don't think the police in the UK have done a good job justifying the benefits of using facial recognition this way. How much safety benefit does it actually produce?
If you don't agree with them, democracies give you the means to start a public discussion. But, in the meanwhile, you comply. That is civilization!
Do you know that idiocy of sovereign citizens? Well, London police demontrated that none of that bullshit will be tolerated. And, while I personally dislike being continuosly filmed, I think that London police has just made London a better place to live.
London city is not the wild west.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if I accept your premise that privacy from facial recognition in public is to your safety as swinging my fist at your nose is to your right to not be assaulted (I don't), I don't think the police in the UK have done a good job justifying the benefits of using facial recognition this way. How much safety benefit does it actually produce?
The main point for me is that policemen made it really clear that, once public procedures and policies have been defined by a legitimate government, unless those policies infringe internationally recognized human rights, it's not up to the single citizen to challenge them! If you don't agree with them, democracies give you the means to start a public discussion. But, in the meanwhile, you comply. That is civilization…
> your privacy ends where my safety is concerned
and I dispute both the premise and that this is a legitimate instance of it.
Modern liberal democracies have until pretty recently come down strongly on the side of privacy. For the most part, in such societies, detaining people and making them answer questions or identify themselves has required significant objective evidence to suspect them of wrongdoing. Searches require stronger evidence, and often judicial oversight. Surveillance dragnets have traditionally been forbidden or strictly limited. In short, people have only been expected to give up privacy in the name of safety under narrow circumstances.
What the police are doing with facial recognition in the UK is anything but narrow. Nobody has made a good case for circumstances in the UK being so dire as to demand people be unable to walk down public streets in near-anonymity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you’re in a specific location or area Are the specific locations this applies to defined in law, or can a senior police officer just say "this neighborhood has a lot of criminals; search everyone"?
Bit of a mix, seems possible to make justification for an entire city. [1] [1] - https://twitter.com/brumpolice/status/1100765101156634624
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe in the countryside. Go to any West EU capital and you'll see planty of niqabs and burqas.
> you'll see plenty of ... burqas No, you won’t. The burqa is extremely rare in Western Europe. This is pointed out whenever political parties propose a burqa ban: a country would be banning something that isn’t even a significant thing there. IIRC, the total number of burqa wearers in all of France, for example, does not exceed 300. As for niqabs, you do see one from time to time, but they certainly aren’t common ag…