UK: Police fine man for covering his face from facial recognition camera

[Vatrilian]

There are a lot of police/authoritarian states and several more on the way to being so. The UK is about as far from it as you can get. I think people who say this really underestimate the rates of violent and drug crime, theft, burglary and trespassing that goes on here. If you think high crime is in any way indicative of a police state, you're deluded. This is just another likely to fail attempt for the police to tackle high crime rates with monitoring rather than being given a bigger budget to increase their staff.

A guy was just fined for covering his face from a public camera. That is insane and disturbing. Clearly it isn’t working as well as London is now more dangerous and crime ridden than New York City.

[Kataroku]

David Attenborough: "And watch here as young Sarah leaves Paul's house at 5 AM to begin her 'walk of shame' - but wait just a moment - for across the road, closeted homosexual Todd is sneaking out the back of Rob's house; what a sight to behold!"

The Government keeping tabs on everyone's whereabouts 24/7 is downright creepy.

[lockedout]

It happens when you are slowing turning into a police-state.

- - - Updated - - -



Because being innocent affords me the right to NOT be filmed.....

Wtf are you not getting?

As much as I don't like it, you are in a public place.

[Vatrilian]

Why has violent crime almost doubled in England? These cameras are not working.

[Fojos]

If you aren't doing anything criminal, why do you care if they know where you are going?

Maybe you should read 1984. I'm pretty sure you're the same kind who thinks it's a good thing blasphemy laws are being returned. The cameras are not there to stop serious crimes, they're coming to control regular people.

[Vatrilian]

Well we have something called probable cause and the 4th amendment. These were all born out of the revolution where the kings men required no reason to search you and detain you.

- - - Updated - - -

Violent crime nearly doubling in England and more cameras than ever wtf?

[hnlntm]

Since this is about prevention of crime, why not put it in the home? Like everyone was saying if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing too fear.

Nothing to fear other than someone possibly misusing the system.

[Vatrilian]

Nothing to fear other than someone possibly misusing the system.

But we should trust our intelligence agencies I mean they are rarely wrong. So what they got that whole Iraq thing wrong and lied to us about data collection from every human with internet access. Remember war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

- - - Updated - - -

My guess would be a Conservative government (English Parliament) hell bent on actively participating in the murder of poor people through grim cuts that damage the human rights of people living on this island in almost every way. Leading to hundreds of thousands of people either homeless, living in abject / relative poverty and dying by the dozens every day.

But I'm probably wrong because we're strong and stable right now.

Has nothing to do with the millions of new immigrants to the country. Your right it’s those scum natives only if England had more immigrants it would see an immediate reduction.

[Kiri]

There are a lot of police/authoritarian states and several more on the way to being so. The UK is about as far from it as you can get. I think people who say this really underestimate the rates of violent and drug crime, theft, burglary and trespassing that goes on here. If you think high crime is in any way indicative of a police state, you're deluded. This is just another likely to fail attempt for the police to tackle high crime rates with monitoring rather than being given a bigger budget to increase their staff.

People can focus on this because it is somewhat tangible. Politicians subverting power structures to become more authoritarian is hard to see, but cameras everywhere are easier to. Besides, cameras hit them too, not just others, so it is actually a concern to many. A lot of people would cry out about being filmed on the way to work, but would ignore it if the government marginalized minorities.

[ReleaseDay]

If you aren't doing anything criminal, why do you care if they know where you are going?

Why do people still post this bs? Jesus...

[Karlz0rz]

What's criminal is defined by the same authorities that control the surveilance.
A whistleblower like Snowden would have had no chance. It requires full trust in the government, and while the goals of you and the law givers might align currently, don't forget that Maduro, Ceaușescu or even Hitler were democratically elected. As soon as you have such a 24/7 surveilance installed, there is no going back.

What's criminal is more often than not reflected as what we as a society deems it to be, not necessarily what the autorities dictates. But yes, I agree, it can definitely be used for more sinister means. But it's more or less the same as with any tool out there made to help us - It CAN be used as something negative. Cars are made to make our lives better, yet people still use them for criminal things. Does that mean we should NOT have cars? I like to believe in the good of people, rather than the bad.

- - - Updated - - -

And if you are visiting a friend after lying to another friend? Going to visit someone for a romantic interlude that neither of you want shared for literally dozens of possible reasons? Coming back from a pub after a bad day at work when you promised to help someone else instead? The list goes on pretty much forever...

None of those things are criminal acts, but each of those things are something that can be exposed inappropriately.

Now, that doesn't mean that UK is necessarily wrong in having cameras in public places, but to force people in public to expose themselves to specific technologies like facial recognition technology definitely seems to be a step too far.

Well, that would stipulate that ANYONE can view the footage, no? But that's not how these things operate normally. There's a taskforce, or a branch that controls what is being recorded/released, that operates under strict rules of non-disclosure etc.. It's like a doctor won't just immediately tell a close friend of yours your medical history, just because they ask :P.
But yes, of course it's not black and white, and it's a complex thing that needs considerations in all directions if to be implemented fully.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Because the people accessing this information aren't very saintly
2. Because this information in the past has been used to destroy lives, by falsely accusing people of various crimes. A great example is all of the people who got shat on by accusations based on photos when Madeline McCann was abducted.
3. Because these things that aren't criminal may be criminal tomorrow.
4. Because if a government becomes tyrannical, this will definitely be used to harm its citizens
5. Because 'guilt by association' will definitely be applied. Good luck if you're caught talking to a criminal, even if you don't know they committed one
6. For the same reason women don't get buck naked in the middle of women's clothing stores
7. For the same reason pretty much everyone on CCTV if it shows up on TV is blurred out
8. Because many crimes aren't even bad. Example in the US - jaywalking. Example in the UK - buying weed.

and a shit ton of other reasons. Summarised: privacy. It is extremely important. Once it is gone, useful idiots like yourself will show up to ensure it is no longer implemented.

So your argument boils down to - "What if people use it in a sinister way?!?"?
99% will be used for good, 1% will be used for bad. Which one is better.... hmm... math...hard...logic...hard..

[Ryme]

Was anyone surprised this was the UK?

- - - Updated - - -

If you aren't doing anything criminal, why do you care if they know where you are going?

Because privacy is a basic human right. I'll take it you're on the thought process that eroding rights is OK if it can potentially prevent crime?

[Socialhealer]

This is the UK, you really don't.

Police and security services in this country can pretty much do as they please, they have little oversight and when they do break the law they can rely on the government covering for them.




Would have been interesting if this was say, a Muslim woman. Somehow I don't think there would have been this level of sympathy.

So the same as every other police force in the world then?

[sopeonaroap]

If you aren't doing anything criminal, why do you care if they know where you are going?

HEY YOU LOOK LIKE THAT GUY WHO DID SOMETHING BAD AND SINCE HUMAN ERROR IS THE ROOT OF MOST PROBLEMS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE JUST KICKED YOUR DOOR IN, KILLED YOUR KID WHO LUNGED AT US AND BEAT THE FRONT OF YOUR FACE INTO A HOLE....before we realized you weren't the same guy

whoops, our bad, tax payers will cover your bills.

that's why. human interpretation of the data is still the bottleneck (and like all data that is collected nowadays, will be sold to the highest bidder, stolen and exploited, etc) and it will lead to more problems than no-knock warrants on the wrong address

nobody will be safer, if you want safer you need to figure out a way to foster "community" which used to be a sort of net to catch all the bad shit. word always got around what you did and who you did it to and even then, mistakes happened and the wrong folks were lynched or people were called witches because someone who didn't like them accused them of levitating, whatever.

it's already as safe as it's ever going to get until we stop letting shitty people back into society "because it's fair"

[Karlz0rz]

Because privacy is a basic human right. I'll take it you're on the thought process that eroding rights is OK if it can potentially prevent crime?

Sure, if your "right" actually serves no other purpose than being a principle, then I can see it being up for discussion of not being needed for the greater good.
Like I said earlier - You'd rather NOT be watched in public by cameras, over potentially helping a serious crime be solved?

[Socialhealer]

While this is scary, what's more scary is that this will probably escalate in to something worse. In the UK we've seen CCTV appear next to places with high value/high risk to CCTV being rolled out nation wide. Now its CCTV with facial recognition, so what's next? CCTV is open to misuse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29380697

everything is open to misuse, people running countries are corrupt, police forces are corrupt, billion dollar companies pay virtually no taxes.

but oh god stop CCTV so thousands of criminals can get away with more crimes because we have no evidence and we've stopped a pervy 51 year old man yay!

[Doctor Amadeus]

If you aren't doing anything criminal, why do you care if they know where you are going?

Because in a free society, people not doing anything shouldn't feel like they are criminals simply because they make a mistake.

[Karlz0rz]

HEY YOU LOOK LIKE THAT GUY WHO DID SOMETHING BAD AND SINCE HUMAN ERROR IS THE ROOT OF MOST PROBLEMS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE JUST KICKED YOUR DOOR IN, KILLED YOUR KID WHO LUNGED AT US AND BEAT THE FRONT OF YOUR FACE INTO A HOLE....before we realized you weren't the same guy

whoops, our bad, tax payers will cover your bills.

that's why. human interpretation of the data is still the bottleneck (and like all data that is collected nowadays, will be sold to the highest bidder, stolen and exploited, etc) and it will lead to more problems than no-knock warrants on the wrong address

Yes, there might be outliers that show that it can also be a negative. But you don't think the positive will outweigh the negative? I like to see the net positive over the negative, just as a general rule in life.

[Socialhealer]

HEY YOU LOOK LIKE THAT GUY WHO DID SOMETHING BAD AND SINCE HUMAN ERROR IS THE ROOT OF MOST PROBLEMS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE JUST KICKED YOUR DOOR IN, KILLED YOUR KID WHO LUNGED AT US AND BEAT THE FRONT OF YOUR FACE INTO A HOLE....before we realized you weren't the same guy

If the police are that bad they're going to fuck up with or without CCTV and facial recognition, what you've said sounds like badly trained or corrupt don't give a fuck cops, you think a lack of CCTV is going to stop them getting the wrong guy?

hell everyone has a phone gimme your address i'll say i heard death threats and screaming, don't need CCTV to potentially end up dead just badly trained cops.

[Karlz0rz]

Because in a free society, people not doing anything shouldn't feel like they are criminals simply because they make a mistake.

If they did something that the law forbids, then that's a consequence they would have to deal with, no matter how "petty" it seems. Argue the laws, not the way they find the people who break them, right?