Jump to content

Facial recognition cameras

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAC33 said:

People laugh at Daveid Icke 

People still do.

 

The guy is a complete idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

will EVERYONE covering their face be fined ? 

No.

 

I think that motorcyclists are exempt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

will EVERYONE covering their face be fined ? 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.