Facial recognition cameras

[Robin-H 11]

10 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Because the police were trialing a facial recognition camera van in Romford Essex and wanted to capture as many public faces as possible.

That seems odd. You’d think that they would get enough people walking by generally without their faces covered without having to go and ask people to uncover theirs... why would they go to the effort? 

 

The criteria you quoted earlier (section 60) means that they had no right to ask him to remove his face covering in this instance, as trailing new software isn’t a listed reason. 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

11 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

The criteria you quoted earlier (section 60) means that they had no right to ask him to remove his face covering in this instance, as trailing new software isn’t a listed reason. 

Correct. 

 

That is why others who didn't want to be photographed were not forced to. I'm sure the police were well aware of this and that is why they gave him a fixed penalty fine for disorderly conduct when he started getting leery and swearing at them.

 

Petty and vindictive on the part of the police granted, but that doesn't alter the fact that he wasn't fined for refusing to uncover his face.

[frigate 10]

ON MAY 14th, San Francisco’s legislature voted to ban city agencies from using facial-recognition technology. Leading the charge was Aaron Peskin, a member of the city's Board of Supervisors, the legislative body. In January, when he introduced the measure, he said he had “yet to be persuaded that there is any beneficial use of this technology that outweighs the potential for government actors to use it for coercive and oppressive ends.

[MAC33 10]

Like a black hobnailed boot forever stomping on the face of society.

 

People laugh at Daveid Icke but when you see stuff like this happening I guess the joke is on you.

[ez8004 10]

Seriously though, how can this co-exist with GDPR?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, MAC33 said:

People laugh at Daveid Icke 

People still do.

 

The guy is a complete idiot.

[Penistone999 10]

will EVERYONE covering their face be fined ? 

[Pettytom 1]

3 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

will EVERYONE covering their face be fined ? 

No.

 

I think that motorcyclists are exempt

[RootsBooster 24]

27 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

will EVERYONE covering their face be fined ? 

I don't think ANYONE is being fined for simply covering their face.

I do think the police were out of line for pursuing the chap though, regardless of his reaction.

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

54 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

will EVERYONE covering their face be fined ? 

I think people who have just had facial surgery will be exempt. 🤕

[alchresearch 214]

UK public: "facial recognition is an outrage and an attack of our civil liberties"

Also UK public whenever there's a crime: "CCTV is rubbish, you can't see the criminals.  We need better equipment"

[altus 540]

17 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

UK public: "facial recognition is an outrage and an attack of our civil liberties"

Also UK public whenever there's a crime: "CCTV is rubbish, you can't see the criminals.  We need better equipment"

They are not the same things.

 

Automatic facial recognition is about scanning everyone indiscriminately, even where no offence has occurred, and putting the results in a big database. It can be used for automatic tracking of entirely innocent people.

 

Humans looking at CCTV doesn't result in information about everyone who appears on the screen being put in a big database.

 

CCTV pictures might not be very good but automatic facial recognition systems have the same limitations in camera equipment. Even with good images, facial recognition systems currently have an over 90% false positive rate[1] for the general population, going up to about 98% for Afro Caribbeans.

 

[1] That is, it identifies someone as being on a watch list when they are not.