Facial recognition cameras

[geared 302]

but apparently the technology is used in China to even fine people for Jay-walking.

 

So is it just the system over here that is terrible?

[altus 537]

27 minutes ago, geared said:

but apparently the technology is used in China to even fine people for Jay-walking.

 

So is it just the system over here that is terrible?

Who said it works any better in China? They could be using an automated system to get several potential matches and have a human review them.

[Obelix 11]

On 17/05/2019 at 18:34, Top Cats Hat said:

It is not a crime.

 

He was fined for using the f-word at the cop which is a public order offence.

IF thats what it was for he'll win in court. The magistrates have repeatedly ruled that using the F and C words to a copper is not public order as the average copper hears them so often they cannot possibly be offended by them.

[Penistone999 10]

18 hours ago, Pettytom said:

No.

 

I think that motorcyclists are exempt

I was thinking more about pedestrians ? 

 

Sure EVERY person these cameras are pointed at should have their face uncovered .  

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Penistone999

[Obelix 11]

You will have a hard time getting mybeard off which is the easiest way to defeat these... sunglasses and a beard remove almost all the index points.

 

[Pettytom 1]

9 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

I was thinking more about pedestrians ? 

 

Sure EVERY person these cameras are pointed at should have their face uncovered .  

 

Absolutely not. If I want to walk around in a balaclava, I’ll do so, thank you very much.

[RootsBooster 24]

18 hours ago, Penistone999 said:

I was thinking more about pedestrians ? 

 

Sure EVERY person these cameras are pointed at should have their face uncovered .  

 

Why should everyone have their face uncovered?

[Halibut 12]

18 hours ago, Penistone999 said:

I was thinking more about pedestrians ? 

 

Sure EVERY person these cameras are pointed at should have their face uncovered .  

 

No. No need. 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

South Wales Police being challenged in court over their use of facial recognition technology.

 

“Police facial recognition surveillance court case starts”

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48315979

[Penistone999 10]

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

No. No need. 

So if i walk past one of these spy cameras wearing a full face balaclava  , that would be ok ?

[Olive 10]

On 18/05/2019 at 20:20, ez8004 said:

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

I'm wondering that too.  Unless an image of you taken in a public place isn't counted as information about you that you have to consent to be used.  A bit like copyright, you don't own an image of you taken by someone else in a public place.

 

I think it needs looking at though.  I think you have every right to go out in public and expect not to be filmed, not to have your picture taken and used for whatever purpose you haven't consented to, simply by walking down the street.   I guess it's slightly different if you go to a place, or enter a premises that you expect cameras to be.  

 

I'm not particularly thrilled when friends putting photos of me on their Facebook pages, it's an intrusion.  If I'm out with So-and-so, that's who I'm out with, not So-and-so and all their Facebook friends.

 

Must be an absolute nightmare these days for anyone on a witness protection programme!

[Top Cats Hat 10]

3 minutes ago, Olive said:

I think you have every right to go out in public and expect not to be filmed, not to have your picture taken and used for whatever purpose you haven't consented to, simply by walking down the street. 

You don't have a right to stop your photograph being taken in a public place although you do have the right to prevent yourself from being photographed by using some form of disguise.

 

Any photograph taken without consent in a public place is unlikely to be covered by the GDPR regulations.