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

231–240 of 283 posts

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#231

Post by snypher »

WalterBright wrote: post #221
windowliker wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oyster is still anonymous, in the sense that no details are required to buy a card, and it can be topped up using cash. The cards can be returned or disposed of as necessary. But as you say, it knows your movements at least in so far as your entry and exit point in the system, with a timestamp, though you can use a separate card for each if you don't mind paying the full fare that gets charged when a journey is 'inco…

Self-checkout at the grocery store is a major vector for shoplifting. That's why the cameras are there. If I was running such a store, I wouldn't want to spend the money on those cameras. But alas, the money is well spent in stopping thieves. I was talking to one of the staff in a grocery store a while ago. He said the corporate auditors came in one day and decided to review the security cams. The result was half the…

I highly doubt that story as camera footage is audited remotely (the store staff know nothing about it), and half the staff is way too high (to not be detected on the ground).

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#232

Post by artisinal »

WalterBright wrote: post #221
windowliker wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oyster is still anonymous, in the sense that no details are required to buy a card, and it can be topped up using cash. The cards can be returned or disposed of as necessary. But as you say, it knows your movements at least in so far as your entry and exit point in the system, with a timestamp, though you can use a separate card for each if you don't mind paying the full fare that gets charged when a journey is 'inco…

Self-checkout at the grocery store is a major vector for shoplifting. That's why the cameras are there. If I was running such a store, I wouldn't want to spend the money on those cameras. But alas, the money is well spent in stopping thieves. I was talking to one of the staff in a grocery store a while ago. He said the corporate auditors came in one day and decided to review the security cams. The result was half the…

The savings that a store has from self checkouts far outweigh the shoplifting it attracts. I don’t see what the cameras add. Do stores review camera footage at the end of the day and then hunt down the offenders?

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#233

Post by reboot81 »

Levitating wrote: post #60

I don't see how this is any different from how traffic cameras are used. Hot take, but as long as the systems aren't abused by law enforcement I don't see the big deal.

At first this made me upset - why should I be monitored? Then it hit me, years ago we had policemen/bobbies that would essentially do the same thing. Look at people - notice them.

It’s a shame they didn't launch this as bobbie v2 that would offer people useful services (like the one wearing a funny hat did): a way to alert police, information, directions. Heck it could even offer guidance for those in need to talk to someone. Truly a missed opportunity.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#234

Post by kimixa »

dingaling wrote: post #134
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.

Yes, the "Big Scary Numbers" listing CCTV cameras per capita include private cameras, which can outnumber "public" (government, council and police) cameras by orders of magnitude. In the UK these include those owned by businesses and individuals, even things like ring doorbells cameras. There's no real equivalent numbers including that I can find for the USA. In 2024 there were some 16 thousand council operated cameras in London total [0] - well below the ~700k often touted including private cameras.

If you restrict it to just those public cameras, London would barely be in the top 10 of USA cities in public cameras per capita.

Sure, it's not good, but implicit in many comments here is "I'm glad it's not that bad here" (presumably the USA for most commentors), but in reality it is happening "here", has been happening "here" for some time, and in many ways is already much worse "here" already.

While I think many of the UK's actions around this are massive mistake, certainly don't read me as supporting it, at least understand that the big headlines and pointing away from home towards "Orwellian UK" is a misleading distraction.

[0] https://www.get-licensed.co.uk/reports/cctv-cameras-in-the-u...

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#235

Post by artisinal »

triceratops wrote: post #158
kypro wrote: post #42

For what it's worth, as a Brit, I assure you no one cares about this, and it's likely that most people, if asked, would support it. The UK doesn't value liberty for liberty's sake like the US does. In the US there seems to be this notion that freedom is a universal good, where as in the UK people are quite comfortable with liberties being revoked if it means they feel safer or fewer people are doing things they don't…

> UK political debate today largely just consists of debates about what to ban next...gambling The UK is banning gambling? Really?

Yes. With the exception of state owned lotteries. Eliminating the competition.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#236

Post by defrost »

schaefer wrote: post #201
mosura wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odd thing is Americans seem to take Aldous Huxley enormously more seriously than the Brits do, and they may be right in doing so.

I'm going to pretend you're talking about The Doors of Perception. Even though you are obviously talking about Brave New World.

I'll just drop:

  In an interview with Ron Martinetti of American Legends website, Laura Huxley called Island "the finest and final work." In Laura's opinion, "He put everything in that.  Brave New World was a warning and Island was an offering."
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(Huxley_novel)

I had a perhaps overly heavy consumption of {X}-topia literature in my early teens.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#237

Post by cannonpr »

artisinal wrote: post #232
WalterBright wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-checkout at the grocery store is a major vector for shoplifting. That's why the cameras are there. If I was running such a store, I wouldn't want to spend the money on those cameras. But alas, the money is well spent in stopping thieves. I was talking to one of the staff in a grocery store a while ago. He said the corporate auditors came in one day and decided to review the security cams. The result was half the…

The savings that a store has from self checkouts far outweigh the shoplifting it attracts. I don’t see what the cameras add. Do stores review camera footage at the end of the day and then hunt down the offenders?

Primarily used to catch and ban from the shop heavy repeat offenders, some people shop lift on order and resell items versus use them for them selves, or have addiction problems with alcoholism etc.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#238

Post by cannonpr »

stavros wrote: post #220
SoftTalker wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people would not steal stuff from shops, the shops would not need cameras. We get the society our behavior creates.

If I wanted to steal something, surely I'd do it before getting to the self checkout counter.

Primary theft at them is where you scan N cheap items and just bag Y expensive item without scan and walk out, plausible deniability/psychology at play, a lot less deniability if you shove a whisky bottle down your trousers.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#239

Post by windowliker »

WalterBright wrote: post #221
windowliker wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oyster is still anonymous, in the sense that no details are required to buy a card, and it can be topped up using cash. The cards can be returned or disposed of as necessary. But as you say, it knows your movements at least in so far as your entry and exit point in the system, with a timestamp, though you can use a separate card for each if you don't mind paying the full fare that gets charged when a journey is 'inco…

Self-checkout at the grocery store is a major vector for shoplifting. That's why the cameras are there. If I was running such a store, I wouldn't want to spend the money on those cameras. But alas, the money is well spent in stopping thieves. I was talking to one of the staff in a grocery store a while ago. He said the corporate auditors came in one day and decided to review the security cams. The result was half the…

But the cameras on the UK self-checkouts only point at your face. How does that stop anything other than casual opportunistic theft of low value items by inculcating some kind of pre-crime guilt feeling? Professional shoplifters (if that isn't an oxymoron) have much more subtle means to carry out their trade, or not as the case may be, depending on their target, usually carried out long before they reach any kind of till.

Re: London Underground begins scanning passengers' faces

#240

Post by WalterBright »

artisinal wrote: post #232
WalterBright wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-checkout at the grocery store is a major vector for shoplifting. That's why the cameras are there. If I was running such a store, I wouldn't want to spend the money on those cameras. But alas, the money is well spent in stopping thieves. I was talking to one of the staff in a grocery store a while ago. He said the corporate auditors came in one day and decided to review the security cams. The result was half the…

The savings that a store has from self checkouts far outweigh the shoplifting it attracts. I don’t see what the cameras add. Do stores review camera footage at the end of the day and then hunt down the offenders?

There's usually one person in charge of an array of self-checkouts, and the self-checkouts flag suspicious activity.

> I don’t see what the cameras add.

Again, stores would not spend money on self-checkouts and cameras if they didn't pay off.

Post reply on HN