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

Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

dailymail.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 190 posts

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#21

Post by noir_lord »

petercooper wrote: post #17
Angostura wrote: post #8

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…

“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…

Up to and including ASBO's

Which whatever their intention became a useful 'we don't like your face' tool.

My default position is 'explain why you want these powers with evidence they are nescessary' unfortunately the average person here doesn't pay any attention, which is why we are one of the most heavily surveiled democracies in the world.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#22

Post by sasasassy »

dalbasal wrote: post #16
StavrosK wrote: post #12

> 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 Very soon a CCTV setup without face recognition will be out of date.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…

In many countries recording someone in public without their consent is simply illegal. If you notice someone caught you in a picture or video, and you visible (not just a blur in a giant mass of people), you can request (force) the person to delete the footage. I've seen this happen multiple times.

Concerts and other closed events routinely have as a condition for attendance that you consent to have your photo taken.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#24

Post by fifnir »

petercooper wrote: post #17
Angostura wrote: post #8

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…

“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…

A great loophole to subvert bureaucracy and return the power to the whims of individuals....

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#25

Post by dsfyu404ed »

foldr wrote: post #20
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #15

Earlier 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.…

Romford is on the outskirts of London and is not especially wealthy.

Exactly. You don't implement your Baghdad style checkpoints in Manhattan. You do it in the Bronx. The rich (the people who's non-disapproval you need) get told by the official statements (that the newspaper regurgitates) how it's the best thing since sliced bread while not actually being negatively affected by it themselves. The fact that you've got a bunch of rich people who never see the downside of each step toward the police state and don't come out strongly against it lends legitimacy to each step.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#26

Post by StavrosK »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #18
dalbasal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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…

Exactly, educate the people about it and get them to want it to stop. Unfortunately, most people don't care if it never actually inconveniences them, and "there's a one in a thousand chance this bad thing will happen to you" isn't enough to get them to care.

Just look at how many people consider the existence of the TSA normal now.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#27

Post by cbovis »

Very interested to understand what sort of metadata is being stored from these cameras. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the cameras are being used to build a database of individual’s movements, whether deliberate or as a side effect of logging.

Any more information on this from a better source than the DM?

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#28

Post by cjrp »

ptah wrote: post #14
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #4

How do they enforce this on people wearing hijabs or other religios clothing that covers the face?

they would ask them for identification just like they did with this guy

Of every person wearing a headscarf or veil? And every cyclist wearing a filter mask?

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#29

Post by dalbasal »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #18
dalbasal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 police to stand at the station and look out for their man, or ask to look at a store's CCTV. We'll... That kind of thing is becoming mediated by software. Upload your CCTV photo to the app, and it finds matches with your target, or multiple targets, or everyone.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#30

Post by lm28469 »

StavrosK wrote: post #12

> 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 and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises.

> A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on ... In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.

> While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable.

> Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation.

> No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization.

Post reply on HN