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

London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 159 posts

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#41

Post by pessimizer »

cjs_ac wrote: post #27

> Live facial recognition will scan the faces of those heading to the “Unite the Kingdom, Unite the West” rally in the borough of Camden, marking the first time the technology has been authorized for use at a protest in the UK. The rally was organized by activist Tommy Robinson who says the rally is for “national unity, free speech and Christian values.” Let's have a look at Tommy Robinson's Wikipedia article*: > Rob…

Yes. It's alright to do it when I don't like the person. Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy? Also, I'm sure that the people who don't like him like me, right?

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#42

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pessimizer wrote: post #41
cjs_ac wrote: post #27

> Live facial recognition will scan the faces of those heading to the “Unite the Kingdom, Unite the West” rally in the borough of Camden, marking the first time the technology has been authorized for use at a protest in the UK. The rally was organized by activist Tommy Robinson who says the rally is for “national unity, free speech and Christian values.” Let's have a look at Tommy Robinson's Wikipedia article*: > Rob…

Yes. It's alright to do it when I don't like the person. Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy? Also, I'm sure that the people who don't like him like me, right?

> Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy?

For a society striking a British balance between security and privacy, I'd say it's fair to require people with violent convictions to (a) register public protests they plan to attend and (b) consent to facial-recognition surveillance in public. (One could hash, locally store and potentially hardware enforce the restriction on the device level.)

That doesn't mean I think it's okay for everyone around him to have to give up those rights. And I wouldn't support even that in America unless the individual is on probation.

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#43

Post by bluefirebrand »

unethical_ban wrote: post #21
fidotron wrote: post #14

I'm old enough to remember when my colleagues were vigourously expressing concern about the potential for Oyster cards to be used to track who was protesting where. What remains astounding about the UK is how few people benefit from this enormous scale privacy invasion. David Cameron, while leader of the opposition, managed to get his bike stolen twice, and neither time did CCTV being literally everywhere help to fin…

Omniscient government surveillance in practice will be of far more use for harassment and suppressing political dissent than it ever will be used for the public good.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Even if the people who are putting all of this surveillance in place genuinely do want to do good, the surveillance will still be in place if someone less scrupulous gains power

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#45

Post by elzbardico »

cjs_ac wrote: post #27

> Live facial recognition will scan the faces of those heading to the “Unite the Kingdom, Unite the West” rally in the borough of Camden, marking the first time the technology has been authorized for use at a protest in the UK. The rally was organized by activist Tommy Robinson who says the rally is for “national unity, free speech and Christian values.” Let's have a look at Tommy Robinson's Wikipedia article*: > Rob…

This is absolutely irrelevant. I don't fucking care whatever the police thinks a protest, any protest should turn into, because I don't want the police to have this power, because it will be abused.

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#47

Post by pessimizer »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42
pessimizer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's alright to do it when I don't like the person. Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy? Also, I'm sure that the people who don't like him like me, right?

> Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy? For a society striking a British balance between security and privacy, I'd say it's fair to require people with violent convictions to (a) register public protests they plan to attend and (b) consent to facial-recognition surveillance in public. (One could hash, locally store and potentially hardware enforce the restriction on the device level.) That does…

People need to be allowed to speak in public without having their identities recorded by the police. Also, if you want to follow somebody around who has "violent convictions," you don't have to release them, you can parole them ("released on license" I think I want to say?)

There's a reason you choose to do this during a political protest.

Also, you included a bunch of gambling and tax debts for some reason? Do you think that they are justified because he, and the people who join him, will be publicly avoiding taxes and bookies?

edit: It's also important to note that in the 15th year of future Reform rule, when a "reformed" Tommy Robinson is appointed Home Secretary, he will entirely support drones doing facial recognition during protests. How else are you supposed to catch the anti-Semites?

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#48

Post by krona »

cjs_ac wrote: post #27

> Live facial recognition will scan the faces of those heading to the “Unite the Kingdom, Unite the West” rally in the borough of Camden, marking the first time the technology has been authorized for use at a protest in the UK. The rally was organized by activist Tommy Robinson who says the rally is for “national unity, free speech and Christian values.” Let's have a look at Tommy Robinson's Wikipedia article*: > Rob…

> The Metropolitan Police are (justifiably) expecting this protest to turn into a violent riot

Robinson has organised 4 London rallies in recent years and this is the second Unite The Kingdom rally. So what makes you think this will be the one which turns violent?

It's basically families listening to speakers on a stage.

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#49

Post by jolmg »

krisbolton wrote: post #24
fidotron wrote: post #14

I'm old enough to remember when my colleagues were vigourously expressing concern about the potential for Oyster cards to be used to track who was protesting where. What remains astounding about the UK is how few people benefit from this enormous scale privacy invasion. David Cameron, while leader of the opposition, managed to get his bike stolen twice, and neither time did CCTV being literally everywhere help to fin…

Did that risk materialise? I suppose it would be only the same as credit cards. With a valid warrant authorities can gain access to information. But that's within a legal system designed by an elected parliament. I'm more concerned about ensuring the legal powers are checked and balanced, and stay that way.

> I suppose it would be only the same as credit cards.

The cards seem to accept cash

Re: London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

#50

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pessimizer wrote: post #47
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should a person I don't like really have rights, or privacy? For a society striking a British balance between security and privacy, I'd say it's fair to require people with violent convictions to (a) register public protests they plan to attend and (b) consent to facial-recognition surveillance in public. (One could hash, locally store and potentially hardware enforce the restriction on the device level.) That does…

People need to be allowed to speak in public without having their identities recorded by the police. Also, if you want to follow somebody around who has "violent convictions," you don't have to release them, you can parole them ("released on license" I think I want to say?) There's a reason you choose to do this during a political protest. Also, you included a bunch of gambling and tax debts for some reason? Do you t…

> People need to be allowed to speak in public without having their identities recorded by the police

Sure. But this isn't an absolute right. To be trivial, you don't have the right to do fraud in public without being recorded by the police.

I'm saying for a convicted violent criminal, particularly one with a history of inciting violence, I think there is a place where a reasonable line could exist.

> you included a bunch of gambling and tax debts

Where did I do this?

Post reply on HN