most people here in the UK would have a credit or debit card on them. almost everyone have a driver's licence, but bank cards are a must even for those that dont
That does not mean they have to carry said stuff with them. Also, credit/debit cards do not store the same kind of information an ID card stores, particularly as there is no photo. Do you really think we ought to have a society in which no one can leave his house without his dog tag?
i don't recall saying that people have to comply with having id on them at all times
For those who prefer not to go to the Daily Mail directly: "Camera cross-checked photos of faces of passers-by against wanted database. One man covered face before officers stopped him and took his picture anyway. He was fined £90 at scene in Romford by police who arrested three other people Police say they know of human rights concerns but want to make London safer"
>..but want to make London safer. It would be nice to be safer from police harassment.
> ..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.
In a science fiction world, those of us who cared about privacy would start wearing make-up (until it was banned): https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu... We don't do this en masse now because "The very thing that makes you invisible to computers makes you glaringly obvious to other humans"
I wonder, what about methods that do not obstruct human vision but do obstruct the camera? Like a faceshield, transparent mask or bag that you can wear (like a transparent raincoat hood) but one that has scattering features for near IR light that will hide your face to cameras.
Or laser dazzlers that look for lenses. Both will probably be quickly banned as criminal tools (like 'hacking tools' are in some nations).
You could also project time-dependent illumination patterns on your own face, throwing off algorithms.
Are there documented, successful uprisings any time in the last 100 years that hinged on private firearm ownership? People say "yeah well look at Iraq and Syria" and so on, but all the examples I know of of even a sort-of successful resistance involve one or more of: part or all of the military siding with the revolutionaries; foreign governments shipping in arms and/or providing assistance like no-fly zones; an oppo…
Yeah, but that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. How large a role did private firearms play in that war? Would they have all been replaced in short order by a few crates from a foreign government or two, had they been absent in the first place (I'm assuming there were any, in significant numbers, to begin with)? What I'm skeptical of isn't that the US military can be defeated, it's that a bunch of guys with a few AR15 clones and handguns would actually be a significant factor in such a defeat. I'm certain they're not necessary for most reasonable scenarios involving victory by the rebels, and kinda doubt they're key for any.
Slight correction: It seems he wasn't exactly fined for hiding his face. Police asked him to uncover his face and he told them to "piss off", for which he was fined.
You'll find in the UK that it's quite common practice to use the vagueness in the law to pin a different charge on somebody. Being rude to a police officer isn't a chargeable offense, yet it'll be treated as such. The police have no requirement or training available to actually understand the nuances of the law, nor are they updated when the law changes. The British police is mostly under-trained and under-funded, especially as you break out of the London bubble.
One of the major issues with UK law is it's vagueness and openness to interpretation, which is all of course by design. You don't tend to notice erosion until the ground beneath you collapses.
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.
Slight correction: It seems he wasn't exactly fined for hiding his face. Police asked him to uncover his face and he told them to "piss off", for which he was fined.
Wait, that's not a slight correction, that's a whole different thing. So nobody was fined for covering their face, but when they swore at cops they got a fine for that? That's quite a distinction. That's the difference between being fined for speaking ill of Budha/Allah/God or for swearing at the police man who asked you to voluntarily not do that.
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…
For those who don't know, Ted murdered people with improvised explosive devices.