Politics UK - man fined for hiding face from police camera

TheKiwi

Mi.net Field Marshall
MI.Net Member
TheMess.Net
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Messages
2,250
Points
298
New-Zealand
A man was pulled to one side, grilled, and fined by cops after he hid his face from a facial-recognition system being tested on the streets of south east England.
London's Metropolitan Police was at the time running public tests of AI-powered equipment that takes photos of people out and about in the capital, and runs the pics through an image database of Brits on a watch list looking for a match.

Specifically, the system was being tested in Romford, a town on the outskirts of East London, and not all of its residents were happy about it. A middle-aged bloke wearing a baseball cap pulled up his fleece to hide the bottom half of his face as he walked past the camera to avoid identification.

He was then stopped by officers, who believed he was acting suspicious, and quizzed. He was fined £90 (~$115) for "disorderly behavior," because, well, it seems the plod couldn't nab him for anything else.

Rest at: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/16/police_face_recognition/

Nice to see that 1984 is being taken as an instruction manual.
 
From this article and something I didn’t bother to post here but that I read over at CNN earlier this week:

Elsewhere, in San Francisco, politicians have taken the matter into their own hands. It has become the first major city in the US, if not the Western world, to impose stringent rules and regulations on how the technology can be used by cops and city government departments. Private companies and federal departments are not affected, however, so some security cameras and airport scanners can still use facial recognition. ®

Well San Fran is actually and for a change doing something that goes in the right direction.

Now, a seemingly law-abiding citizen is forced to have his mug registered into the database of the Blue Mafia.

I realize personally that using FB or even forums makes me « monitored » for what I write, how I express my thoughts etc. This doesn’t bother me that much because like many I’ve decided to trade my privacy for keeping in touch with pals.

Unless one doesn’t own a smartphone, withdraw large amount of cash and lives as a recluse, like any criminal on the run; I’m not choosing that life. Not much to hide so 1984 come at me.
 
From this article and something I didn’t bother to post here but that I read over at CNN earlier this week:



Well San Fran is actually and for a change doing something that goes in the right direction.

Now, a seemingly law-abiding citizen is forced to have his mug registered into the database of the Blue Mafia.

I realize personally that using FB or even forums makes me « monitored » for what I write, how I express my thoughts etc. This doesn’t bother me that much because like many I’ve decided to trade my privacy for keeping in touch with pals.

Unless one doesn’t own a smartphone, withdraw large amount of cash and lives as a recluse, like any criminal on the run; I’m not choosing that life. Not much to hide so 1984 come at me.
@Jake84
I am (or rather was) like you. The mantra "i have nothing to be afraid of because i am law abiding" is ok to a certain point
Once you are monitored (and we are all when using a computer) you are classified. Oh this is old like the word (we had and maybe still have those famous RG files in France post 1945) but the amount of info were limited
Now, the data mining allows to know your political preferences, religious leaning, sexual leaning, customer preferences, up to your DNA profile

It is bearable in a society where you cannot punished for any of such choices of yours. Unfortunately, given the political atmosphere, i don't think we will stay in such society for very long. Especially with the activism of social warriors from the far left and far right on various subjects and the rising populism.
Any of your preferences registered (even if all law abiding and socialy acceptable today) into a database somewhere could turn itself into a kind of yellow david star, depending of who got to power in the incoming years. That's the main issue.....
 
I can kind of understand it from one point of view - ie, use it at a location where there's a legitimate reason to use it. Like, at a football game looking for known hooligans where there's a danger of them being violent and this could prevent that violence.
But just scanning the street, looking at everyone who walks past? F**k that noise.

I might write to my MP to bitch and moan about this, just because I can and it's been a few years since I've let him know something has irked me.
 
Refuse to pay, go to court, guaranteed the charge gets dropped for lack of evidence. Unless GB laws are fundamentally different than Oz, there is no evidence to offer of "disorderly conduct"

Just my 2/- worth ?
 
After putting on my tinfoil hat, it's perhaps also worth noting that the British Government issue biometric passports so even though I've never broken a law, they've already got my picture readily set up for facial-recognition. If at some point they decide to link the database of passport holders to this technology then they've got an easy way of tracking everyone, whether you have a criminal record or not.
 
If I weren't on some kind of watch list I'd be disappointed....
 
Add this with the UK's tendency to go after people for funny videos or tweets that hurt someone's feelings and the full picture looks sad and grim.
I'm disappointed with the trajectory of several EU countries these days and hope this nightmare will end before too much permanent damage has been done.
 
Officers previously insisted people could decline to be scanned, before later clarifying that anyone trying to avoid scanners may be stopped and searched. -After being fined, the man told a reporter: 'The chap told me down the road - he said they've got facial recognition. So I walked past like that (covering my face).
Speaking about the man who was fined, a Scotland Yard spokesman said: 'On Thursday, January 31 officers stopped a man who was seen acting suspiciously in the area of Romford Town Centre during the deployment of the live facial recognition technology.
'After being stopped the man became aggressive and made threats towards officers. He was issued with a penalty notice for disorder as a result.

CR's comment - He purposely acted suspiciously so play stupid games win silly prizes.

 
I totally understand and accept the government’s effort to automate and scale surveillance for reasonable public safety and security.

The government, and most importantly the legal system, should understand and accept private citizen’s reasonable efforts to circumvent unreasonable surveillance.
 
Technically I'd say this technology is illegal , but we all have birth certificates which allows them to circumnavigate certain rules . Theres the law ( common law ) , then there's acts of parliament . If you accepted your birth certificate at the age of 2 days ( I'm sure we all did ) then you also accepted the terms and conditions as laid down by the crown , or state . Parking fines are technically illegal . Got a driving licence issued by the state ? Then you accept the terms and conditions as laid down by parliament which then allows them to issue fines or penalties . All pretty crap really , but it's how governments circumnavigate the law .
 

First legal challenge regarding this technology to start later on today.......
The European Court of Justice has also received numerous complaints by British citizens, as the British surveillance state is most likely incompatable with European data protection law, but… oh well. ;)

What strikes me as interesting is the fact that in most countries whose political system is dominated by two parties, you'll usually find a split along the middle in terms of the civil liberties vs. homeland security dilemma. In the UK (as well as in the US) however, both the government and the premier opposition party seem fundamentally in agreement with the state spying on its own citizens.
 
The European Court of Justice has also received numerous complaints by British citizens, as the British surveillance state is most likely incompatable with European data protection law, but… oh well. ;)

Most of them are not 'British' and are not 'citizens' - if they were not here we wouldn't need so much surveillance:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
The European Court of Justice has also received numerous complaints by British citizens, as the British surveillance state is most likely incompatable with European data protection law, but… oh well. ;)

What strikes me as interesting is the fact that in most countries whose political system is dominated by two parties, you'll usually find a split along the middle in terms of the civil liberties vs. homeland security dilemma. In the UK (as well as in the US) however, both the government and the premier opposition party seem fundamentally in agreement with the state spying on its own citizens.

And you'd be right muck . It certainly explains the irregular voting patterns we are seeing in Anglo Saxon culture . But I do have to question why you think being guided by EU law prevents you from the same fate ?
 
The technology being used by the UK Police has been a miserable failure with 20 false positives for every actual detection. It's also notorious for the false positives being higher with non-white faces.

I can only assume that the acquisition process for the product involved long boozy lunches, brown paper envelopes full of 20 quid notes and many high priced escorts.
 
Most of them are not 'British' and are not 'citizens' - if they were not here we wouldn't need so much surveillance:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I doubt that. The verifiably single biggest security threat to your country is "homegrown terrorism", committed mostly by British Asians. Also, the recent spree of "knife crime" is a primarily British phenomenon.

But I do have to question why you think being guided by EU law prevents you from the same fate ?

I didn't say that, did I? However, it's unlikely the EU will draw level with the UK in terms of surveillance anytime soon – with your country leaving the Union now more than ever. Continental Europe maintains a different cultural approach to privacy- and data protection, presumably as a result of the great many dictatorships our glorious ancestors came up with. What's the right to free speech to the Anglo-American cultural circle, is the right to the inviolability of privacy to us.
 
I doubt that. The verifiably single biggest security threat to your country is "homegrown terrorism", committed mostly by British Asians. Also, the recent spree of "knife crime" is a primarily British phenomenon.



I didn't say that, did I? However, it's unlikely the EU will draw level with the UK in terms of surveillance anytime soon – with your country leaving the Union now more than ever. Continental Europe maintains a different cultural approach to privacy- and data protection, presumably as a result of the great many dictatorships our glorious ancestors came up with. What's the right to free speech to the Anglo-American cultural circle, is the right to the inviolability of privacy to us.

Yep , again I'd agree . The UK has the highest incarceration rate in Europe and is officially the most surveyed state in the world . Have these two facts led to a reduction in crime ? Hard to tell but the cynic in me says not really . The UK has 9 out of 10 poorest regions in northern Europe , it also has the richest . I'd say this rather large gulf of inequality is your main reason ; large gaps between rich and poor generally leads to an increase in crime .
Could the umbrella of Anglo Saxon country's attitude to privacy be simply down to the simple fact that we haven't had our tyrant yet , unlike mainland Europe ? Again I think you might be onto something there muck .
 
The technology being used by the UK Police has been a miserable failure with 20 false positives for every actual detection. It's also notorious for the false positives being higher with non-white faces.

I can only assume that the acquisition process for the product involved long boozy lunches, brown paper envelopes full of 20 quid notes and many high priced escorts.

I honestly don't know anything about the tech so forgive me if I'm being a dumbass when I ask this out of idle curiosity - is it 'live'? By which I mean, it scans my face - does it instantly tell the rozzers I'm a bad person with a criminal record? Or does it take three hours of processing before they get told that 'Old stabby Gaz' was in that street?
The reason I ask is that I went through a biometric passport scanner yesterday and it took a good ten seconds to figure who I was whilst standing right in front of the camera with a light shining on my face and my passport telling them what to compare it to.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top