Central Londoners to be subjected to facial recognition test this week(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Central Londoners to be subjected to facial recognition test this week
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/londons-police-will-be-testing-facial-recognition-in-public-for-2-days/
91 comments
Not a single comment on who developed this for the Met (http://news.met.police.uk/news/facial-recognition-technology...), but the second link (https://www.met.police.uk/live-facial-recognition-trial/) actually gives us a name: NEC NeoFace which was used in Dallas airport in July 2017: https://dallasinnovates.com/necs-neoface-tech-tested-u-s-air...
The best way to discourage its use at this point is via the courts. Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off. Not a fan of bench legislation, but keeping this out of widespread use is really, really important.
We are long past the point of discourage its use. The move now should be to make sure it is properly regulated so that retention duration is public and verifiable. That acting off the images has follow a well defined legal process. Most of it will be forensic in nature and the benefits of the technology far outweigh the horrors that many claim will come. Here's a hint, the governments of this world have already committed gross violations of human rights of the worst kind for centuries, this isn't going to change that for the worse.
If anything a trusted system will put the authorities on their toes too. It will provide the ability to not only track those who committed a crime but those in need of emergency services. It will even capture those who enforce the laws. Yes there will be real time applications of this tech in the near future and that is why those who can create this software should damn well be working to make sure it does work and is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them. Its going to happen, make sure if you can participate you do so that the wolves don't have free run of the hen house.
So make it work, make it public, make it obvious, regulate it, and regulate those who employ it. That is where we are now. If we keep running from it we give other people the opportunity to do wrong with it
If anything a trusted system will put the authorities on their toes too. It will provide the ability to not only track those who committed a crime but those in need of emergency services. It will even capture those who enforce the laws. Yes there will be real time applications of this tech in the near future and that is why those who can create this software should damn well be working to make sure it does work and is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them. Its going to happen, make sure if you can participate you do so that the wolves don't have free run of the hen house.
So make it work, make it public, make it obvious, regulate it, and regulate those who employ it. That is where we are now. If we keep running from it we give other people the opportunity to do wrong with it
No. I don't care how long they're keeping it.
The problem is that governments have databases of citizens. The problem of governments is that they want to blow a hole in previous ideas of "assumption of privacy".
Lots of people around the world have trusted governments in the past. Many of them are dead.
If you haven't guessed, I don't trust the government. But I think that's with good reason. I don't believe any regulation can solve this problem. The government itself should regulate its own use of something? Like that's worked before.
Keep this away from me. My concern is only secondarily that someone using my data to run ads. My concern is primarily that government should never have access to such a tool.
Keep this away from me. My concern is only secondarily that someone using my data to run ads. My concern is primarily that government should never have access to such a tool.
> those who can create this software should damn well be working to make sure it does work and is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them
That work begins with thinking about it seriously, and it's obvious by now this can't be left up to software devs exclusively.
I could probably find you dozens of threads on HN about the web being bloated, with hundreds of comments just saying it's "impossible" to make a half-decent website because of what the "boss" or "the marketing dept" tells devs. Like, the web isn't shit because of devs, but because they don't call the shots. And that's just the web. People who can't even stand up to, and face down, people who aren't even cold-blooded killers -- will "make sure" that... "is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them". Oh, so to make it impossible, just not "easy"...? This means nothing, you cannot even commit in a text comment. Because you know it's impossible to make it impossible. It's like saying the scientists who worked on the nuke should have made sure it could not be used for nuclear war.
I think it would be more effective to flip the script socially, instead of being so defensive. In practice, for most people, the data generated on them doesn't matter much, yet -- but other data data also gets generated: who is being a snoop, who is working with snoops, who is pushing for mass surveillance, who is rationalizing or belittling it, who ever changed their mind, and who didn't. So much data, and that data might stick around forever, too. How will the future judge it? That data we can and should make matter, and that's purely social, a matter of education and backbone, not technology or money. Though of course it has to be parallel with legal and technical efforts, not in place of them, I think the "social dimension" (which begins with individuals, not groups, groups of people that skipped the "individual" step are empty) it's very important and very underrated, a blind spot even.
So I say, step one is realizing that you are not the obedient shadow of a human being, you're not the one creeping in the shadow being a voyeur or even a slave to fascists... and the the pitiful things those see about you really are pitiful in light to what they don't even know about themselves, much less about you. If Gulliver lets himself by hypnotized and put to sleep, sure, then it all goes south -- but otherwise, it's not even a contest.
> It doesn't matter whether you hate the spies and believe they are corroding democracy, or if you think they are the noble guardians of the state. In both cases the assumption is that the secret agents know more than we do.
> But the strange fact is that often when you look into the history of spies what you discover is something very different.
> It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us.
-- Adam Curtis
I mean, let's ignore actual national security stuff for a second, practice dividing real things from abusive, infantile bullshit by engaging with marketing in a more confident and hostile manner. That also begins in the head. Don't feel degraded by what marketing tells you, realize what pathetic things it says about those putting it in front of you. What kind of secrets, nay, fears would one hide behind such a giant apparatus, be it technical, organisatory, or via systems of bloated and diluted language? How are people who consent to that not weak in turn? Let the "top 10% of the world who cannot say yes" say "no" in unison, and the rest of the world, where 5 people can't even agree with each other, would shake and crumble to dust. 700 million serious people would scare the world shitless.
Pleading with doinks means you haven't fully realized they are doinks and should do that first. Considering the weak people the even weaker people in question take orders from, they would so fall in line if the public just so much as collectively cleared its throat. Again, think Gulliver. That just needs to actually happen, and that starts with doing it wherever you are, regardless of what anyone else does. "Be the change that needs to happen in the world for it to not go under", at this point.
The thing about tradeoffs is, they only even accumulate insofar as you ever strayed from this path. Otherwise, you just accumulate "not having given in" time on the clock, and might not even be tempted to trade that for some creature comforts and sweaty handshakes from doinks. I don't know what a doink is, but I love that word. It's supposed to be playfully demeaning. Spooks and their "crowd" are just lost, they probably need our help more than anything. But that starts with giving them boundaries instead of power, and that starts with knowing your own worth, trying to be good so that being good can be good to you (which it will). Appeasing abusers does not lead to peace. Study examples in history as well as psychopathology, there's plenty. Mind you, escalation and unfairness doesn't lead to peace or improvements, either... by "appeasing" I mean buying into all of it, being obedient for the hopes of mercy. This does not work, it really achieves the opposite. Be firm but fair, and never fear.
That work begins with thinking about it seriously, and it's obvious by now this can't be left up to software devs exclusively.
I could probably find you dozens of threads on HN about the web being bloated, with hundreds of comments just saying it's "impossible" to make a half-decent website because of what the "boss" or "the marketing dept" tells devs. Like, the web isn't shit because of devs, but because they don't call the shots. And that's just the web. People who can't even stand up to, and face down, people who aren't even cold-blooded killers -- will "make sure" that... "is not easily thwarted by those in power or abused by them". Oh, so to make it impossible, just not "easy"...? This means nothing, you cannot even commit in a text comment. Because you know it's impossible to make it impossible. It's like saying the scientists who worked on the nuke should have made sure it could not be used for nuclear war.
I think it would be more effective to flip the script socially, instead of being so defensive. In practice, for most people, the data generated on them doesn't matter much, yet -- but other data data also gets generated: who is being a snoop, who is working with snoops, who is pushing for mass surveillance, who is rationalizing or belittling it, who ever changed their mind, and who didn't. So much data, and that data might stick around forever, too. How will the future judge it? That data we can and should make matter, and that's purely social, a matter of education and backbone, not technology or money. Though of course it has to be parallel with legal and technical efforts, not in place of them, I think the "social dimension" (which begins with individuals, not groups, groups of people that skipped the "individual" step are empty) it's very important and very underrated, a blind spot even.
So I say, step one is realizing that you are not the obedient shadow of a human being, you're not the one creeping in the shadow being a voyeur or even a slave to fascists... and the the pitiful things those see about you really are pitiful in light to what they don't even know about themselves, much less about you. If Gulliver lets himself by hypnotized and put to sleep, sure, then it all goes south -- but otherwise, it's not even a contest.
> It doesn't matter whether you hate the spies and believe they are corroding democracy, or if you think they are the noble guardians of the state. In both cases the assumption is that the secret agents know more than we do.
> But the strange fact is that often when you look into the history of spies what you discover is something very different.
> It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us.
-- Adam Curtis
I mean, let's ignore actual national security stuff for a second, practice dividing real things from abusive, infantile bullshit by engaging with marketing in a more confident and hostile manner. That also begins in the head. Don't feel degraded by what marketing tells you, realize what pathetic things it says about those putting it in front of you. What kind of secrets, nay, fears would one hide behind such a giant apparatus, be it technical, organisatory, or via systems of bloated and diluted language? How are people who consent to that not weak in turn? Let the "top 10% of the world who cannot say yes" say "no" in unison, and the rest of the world, where 5 people can't even agree with each other, would shake and crumble to dust. 700 million serious people would scare the world shitless.
Pleading with doinks means you haven't fully realized they are doinks and should do that first. Considering the weak people the even weaker people in question take orders from, they would so fall in line if the public just so much as collectively cleared its throat. Again, think Gulliver. That just needs to actually happen, and that starts with doing it wherever you are, regardless of what anyone else does. "Be the change that needs to happen in the world for it to not go under", at this point.
The thing about tradeoffs is, they only even accumulate insofar as you ever strayed from this path. Otherwise, you just accumulate "not having given in" time on the clock, and might not even be tempted to trade that for some creature comforts and sweaty handshakes from doinks. I don't know what a doink is, but I love that word. It's supposed to be playfully demeaning. Spooks and their "crowd" are just lost, they probably need our help more than anything. But that starts with giving them boundaries instead of power, and that starts with knowing your own worth, trying to be good so that being good can be good to you (which it will). Appeasing abusers does not lead to peace. Study examples in history as well as psychopathology, there's plenty. Mind you, escalation and unfairness doesn't lead to peace or improvements, either... by "appeasing" I mean buying into all of it, being obedient for the hopes of mercy. This does not work, it really achieves the opposite. Be firm but fair, and never fear.
Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off.
The police are well aware of this, and consequently won't use facial recognition data as evidence in criminal cases. That won't stop them using the data to knock on the doors of every person who matched (for some level of confidence) a given facial profile though.
The police are well aware of this, and consequently won't use facial recognition data as evidence in criminal cases. That won't stop them using the data to knock on the doors of every person who matched (for some level of confidence) a given facial profile though.
[deleted]
Are they now legally allowed to use a facial recognition match as grounds for reasonable suspicion?
>Declare facial recognition inadmissible, and its use will drop off.
no, they will just use it for parallel construction instead
no, they will just use it for parallel construction instead
But that's at least illegal. If it's inadmissible, they won't likely get funded. And if they try that, it's fruit of the poisonous tree and a good lawyer should be able to ferret that out.
I didn't say it's a perfect solution. But it might at least help.
I didn't say it's a perfect solution. But it might at least help.
> it's fruit of the poisonous tree
Not a thing in England.
Not a thing in England.
> But that's at least illegal.
What makes you think that?
What do you think about how the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 applies to parallel construction of evidence?
What makes you think that?
What do you think about how the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 applies to parallel construction of evidence?
Will you go ahead and declare it for us?
> Declare facial recognition inadmissible
Does England do that?
Does England do that?
I wonder if there's a demonstrable correlation between level of police funding and support for such initiatives. In the UK's public sector there is definitely a strong drive for automation, but it does kind of coincide with austerity and drastic cuts in police services.
> According to the police, these trials ... "will be used overtly with a clear uniformed presence and information leaflets will be disseminated to the public,"
This line really creeps me out. Essentially: "But it's OK, because we're being very clear about what we are doing, handing out leaflets and wearing our uniforms so you can trust us."
If these trials are successful - or, for that matter, if they are not - can we assume that they will drop all of that facade at the earliest opportunity in favour of silent and ubiquitous rollout?
Who will be wearing uniforms and handing out fliers in 1, 2 or 5 years, when facial recognition surveillance technology operates behind every one of the thousands of surveillance cameras that capture our faces and movements every single day?
This line really creeps me out. Essentially: "But it's OK, because we're being very clear about what we are doing, handing out leaflets and wearing our uniforms so you can trust us."
If these trials are successful - or, for that matter, if they are not - can we assume that they will drop all of that facade at the earliest opportunity in favour of silent and ubiquitous rollout?
Who will be wearing uniforms and handing out fliers in 1, 2 or 5 years, when facial recognition surveillance technology operates behind every one of the thousands of surveillance cameras that capture our faces and movements every single day?
This not a trial, in terms of what a real trial should be.
It is a deliberate wedge strategy that has been employed at least once in the UK before. (I couldn’t find a source right now, will report back when I can.)
The goal is to be able to say to higher powers that «we reached out to the public and they didn’t mind.»
And then it’s made permanent.
It is a deliberate wedge strategy that has been employed at least once in the UK before. (I couldn’t find a source right now, will report back when I can.)
The goal is to be able to say to higher powers that «we reached out to the public and they didn’t mind.»
And then it’s made permanent.
I smell a market for facial prosthetics (good ones) and sunglasses. Maybe large hats.
They'll simply pass a law making disguises/obfuscation illegal in public.
Because why would anybody who's not a criminal or up to no good have any issue with the tracking, right?
Because why would anybody who's not a criminal or up to no good have any issue with the tracking, right?
already a law where i live
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-1...
for historical context, this was not passed historically to combat the KKK, who have a storied history in this state. Nor was it passed under national security hysteria. It was passed very recently, to arrest guy fawke's mask wearers at the Anonymous Million Mask March.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-1...
for historical context, this was not passed historically to combat the KKK, who have a storied history in this state. Nor was it passed under national security hysteria. It was passed very recently, to arrest guy fawke's mask wearers at the Anonymous Million Mask March.
Plastic surgery will likely remain legal. I could see a future where people avoid recognition by simply changing their features like a custom video game character.
Plastic surgery might remain legal, but you would likely be required to submit before and after photos. Making it pointless.
If the tech reaches the point where you can do it at home, that won't matter.
You can trivially build banned (some places;) inanimate objects at home, but that does not stop legislators from making those that do criminals. You didnt update FaceRegistry? That's a felony, and another felony for modding your 3d faceprinter to break the FR DRM.
I'm sure that will sit well with Londons large orthodox muslim community.
As someone in the field, I recommend sunglasses and those filter masks common in Asia.
Or paper bags.
How about the old classic -- a Groucho Marx moustache and a pair of glasses? ;)
Or maybe a Theresa May paper mask...
Or maybe a Theresa May paper mask...
make no mistake, the rest of the world's leaders don't see China as a dystopian hellhole, they see it as a proof of concept. The only way to stop this is now, to strike hard and reject it entirely. Because once it's fully implemented any future rebellions will be able to be snuffed out in their infancy.
IE: Government sees a group of people visiting suspicious websites, they use phone location tracking to see that a small group is meeting up in person, government then uses facial recognition to track them 24/7 and eventually finds an excuse to arrest them before the movement can grow
Although I doubt people will do anything, we're too comfortable and they'll simply boil us like frogs, pushing privacy rights back inch by inch until people finally realize they are against the edge of a cliff
IE: Government sees a group of people visiting suspicious websites, they use phone location tracking to see that a small group is meeting up in person, government then uses facial recognition to track them 24/7 and eventually finds an excuse to arrest them before the movement can grow
Although I doubt people will do anything, we're too comfortable and they'll simply boil us like frogs, pushing privacy rights back inch by inch until people finally realize they are against the edge of a cliff
First it's optional, and then it won't be. Do people from UK realize that the government, intelligence agencies, and the police see no end in sight for this type of (ab)use of surveillance and censorship technology?
To me at least it has seemed obvious for some time that the UK government wants to emulate China in this regard. So they see China as a "role model" to be followed. I mean GCHQ has even proposed a Great British Firewall for crying out loud. But like with the porn filter, they will promise to block only the "really bad stuff" with it -- at first.
Both "democratic" and undemocratic governments of the world have woken up to the fact that the internet gives people "too much freedom", so they are all working to restrict that freedom, with all sorts of "plausible justifications".
To me at least it has seemed obvious for some time that the UK government wants to emulate China in this regard. So they see China as a "role model" to be followed. I mean GCHQ has even proposed a Great British Firewall for crying out loud. But like with the porn filter, they will promise to block only the "really bad stuff" with it -- at first.
Both "democratic" and undemocratic governments of the world have woken up to the fact that the internet gives people "too much freedom", so they are all working to restrict that freedom, with all sorts of "plausible justifications".
> To me at least it has seemed obvious for some time that the UK government wants to emulate China in this regard. So they see China as a "role model" to be followed
I may be overly cynical but it seems to me that China is the most honest country involved in governmental mass surveillance. They never tried to hide the intent behind their decisions whereas western nations always bring up false pretenses to eat away at their people's rights and freedoms. The most pathetic of all being "terrorism". We're all headed in the same direction, it's just going to be achieved through different means.
I may be overly cynical but it seems to me that China is the most honest country involved in governmental mass surveillance. They never tried to hide the intent behind their decisions whereas western nations always bring up false pretenses to eat away at their people's rights and freedoms. The most pathetic of all being "terrorism". We're all headed in the same direction, it's just going to be achieved through different means.
Many premises already don't permit entry if you wear a face ski mask (balaclava) or a motorbike helmet.
I wonder how long until it's illegal to simply walk down the street wearing either.
Even if it's not actually illegal, I'm certain it won't be long before the Police stop and detain anyone that does, because obviously you have something to hide - your face!
I wonder how long until it's illegal to simply walk down the street wearing either.
Even if it's not actually illegal, I'm certain it won't be long before the Police stop and detain anyone that does, because obviously you have something to hide - your face!
They will never be able to outlaw "adversarial" make-up, specially designed so that the bearer is identified as another person.
Today in London, Richard Nixon was seen at 37 coffee shops, 18 shoe shops, and even buying a Lambo.
They had this in Berlin city-train (S-Bahn) stop Südkreutz. I never consented, and now wear a scarf over my face in that station.
I'm sure your eyes and nose, which you probably don't cover, are more than enough to recognise you.
I think it would be more effective to wear big eyeglasses (like Wayfarers) but I'm not sure, maybe someone can chime in?
I think it would be more effective to wear big eyeglasses (like Wayfarers) but I'm not sure, maybe someone can chime in?
I try to cover up as much as I can. Sunglasses are a good idea.
Regarding sunglasses in Berlin, police stopped me on my e-moped recently and forced me into a restaurant bathroom to do a pee test for drugs, and they told me the reason was that I wore sunglasses when riding and thus looked suspicious. I wear then to protect my eyes from dust and bugs. I was absolutely sober, and going home from church. My takeaway is, Berlin police want your face.
Regarding sunglasses in Berlin, police stopped me on my e-moped recently and forced me into a restaurant bathroom to do a pee test for drugs, and they told me the reason was that I wore sunglasses when riding and thus looked suspicious. I wear then to protect my eyes from dust and bugs. I was absolutely sober, and going home from church. My takeaway is, Berlin police want your face.
Can't help but think that if this was done in beijing or shanghai, the headline would be far more ominous.
For all the politically motivated attacks on facebook and tech by politicians ( especially the british and their commonwealth ones ), they sure do love spying on their own citizens.
And for all the talk about dystopian china, it is britain that is leading the world on spying on its citizens and using an authoritarian "social credit" system on its people.
And I've no doubt that our politicians and tech leaders are using london/britain as testing ground for surveillance before importing to the US.
I would love for china and its people to be free and have individual rights, but I'm far more worried about the loss of freedom, privacy and individual rights in the US.
For all the politically motivated attacks on facebook and tech by politicians ( especially the british and their commonwealth ones ), they sure do love spying on their own citizens.
And for all the talk about dystopian china, it is britain that is leading the world on spying on its citizens and using an authoritarian "social credit" system on its people.
And I've no doubt that our politicians and tech leaders are using london/britain as testing ground for surveillance before importing to the US.
I would love for china and its people to be free and have individual rights, but I'm far more worried about the loss of freedom, privacy and individual rights in the US.
What "social credit" system does the UK have? We don't even have identity cards...
Maybe gp is referring to the extremely classist nature of UK culture? One of my best friends who got his Bachelors in the US but then did his masters at Cambridge explained to me that egalitarianism basically doesn't exist in reality there. They denied him his application for PhD, while the professor who read it stole his idea and made it his own... and this was to a dual American/British citizen. When I visited, I was taken aback at how snobby and disdainful of the plebs people at Oxford were. To me as an American who had made British military friends during the war that seemed awesome, it was really shocking how dystopian the UK was, and not just the massive government surveillance, (for example, imsi catching in The City stole my GPS signal for a few hours at one point) it felt much more like a thin veneer over oligarchical neofuedalism even the plebs participated in. There may not be an official social credit system (yet), but Brits are good at knowing it without the card.
It sounds like you met a bunch of arseholes tbh. Sorry about them. We are not all like that.
The only people who I have experience with who are overly classist, tend to be a bit older (50+) and consider themselves above other people, and are as mentioned arseholes. The vast majority of people think this whole thing is old fashioned, out of date, and disgusting. It is not something that people (at least myself, and the people I know) overtly come into contact with on a daily basis.
This is not to say things are perfect, or that there are not people like this. But that modern Britain is not, aside from some annoying exceptions, like this.
The only people who I have experience with who are overly classist, tend to be a bit older (50+) and consider themselves above other people, and are as mentioned arseholes. The vast majority of people think this whole thing is old fashioned, out of date, and disgusting. It is not something that people (at least myself, and the people I know) overtly come into contact with on a daily basis.
This is not to say things are perfect, or that there are not people like this. But that modern Britain is not, aside from some annoying exceptions, like this.
That is the impression I had too (that it was overstated), until I visited and experienced it firsthand, from Birmingham to Oxford to London. Perhaps the countryside is different. Of course it's true the same can be found in the US, but my experience with that is that the rich in the US only care if you are rich, whereas in the UK it seems much less than about just the money.
Was there another common factor that linked these people? You mentioned that the one's in Oxford were from the university? They tend to be a bit older and to think they're better than other people (joking!!). And old institutions do tend to drag a bit.
But you are right there is a 'class' element, like how you speak, where you went to school, that isn't just money. It does seem to be going, luckily.
Sorry again for your bad experiences!
edit - made statements clearer
But you are right there is a 'class' element, like how you speak, where you went to school, that isn't just money. It does seem to be going, luckily.
Sorry again for your bad experiences!
edit - made statements clearer
Might just be an age thing. In the United States those above the age of 50 tend to look down upon later generations. It doesn’t come across as classist, because we abandoned our formal class system a while ago, but ageist is probably the right word for it.
Bad luck - sounds like your friend ran into the Bullingdon Club on a night out....
Very little of the UK is like that and I'm pretty sure I could find equivalent examples in the US!
Very little of the UK is like that and I'm pretty sure I could find equivalent examples in the US!
His experience may be extreme but, sorry to say, the UK is like that in many subtle ways.
Try living in the Home counties with a northern accent, for example, and see how you fare.
Try living in the Home counties with a northern accent, for example, and see how you fare.
'Northerner terrifies Londoners by saying "Hello"'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT0ay9u1gg4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT0ay9u1gg4
What a silly man.
> for example, imsi catching in The City stole my GPS signal for a few hours at one point
I'm going to need an explanation of how you think GPS signals are mediated by an IMSI catcher, because they aren't.
Maybe you're thinking of the A-GPS information that cellular providers typically send? Missing that won't harm anyone's GPS, it will just take a bit longer for a first fix.
I'm going to need an explanation of how you think GPS signals are mediated by an IMSI catcher, because they aren't.
Maybe you're thinking of the A-GPS information that cellular providers typically send? Missing that won't harm anyone's GPS, it will just take a bit longer for a first fix.
I don't know how it was done, but after walking past The City Police HQ, my GPS for hours showed I was there. this is after phone reboots, etc. Unfortunately I wasn't on a rooted android (iPhone 6+ at the time) so I couldn't verify.
Classism exists but it's definitely much worse at oxbridge than elsewhere.
What's the "social credit" system that is being used in the UK? I haven't heard anything about that.
I'm guessing this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#United_Ki...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#United_Ki...
This would seem to be more an aggregation of financial credit scores, rather than a "Social Credit System" as I image those to be.
I thought this ship sailed? I heard of CCTV control centres in London doing this about 15 years ago? I can’t find a link, has anyone else heard of that?
The process of stealing peoples data, there physical appearance data in this case, in the name of security and billing the tax payer billions of pounds for the priveledge, isnt going away very soon.
Is anyone donating to the Big Brother Watch campaign?
They mentioned it was used in South Wales to assure us it's been used before, but failed to mention that 92% were false positives.
https://futurism.com/welsh-police-face-scanning-software-inc...
https://futurism.com/welsh-police-face-scanning-software-inc...
It doesn't matter that there are so many false positives if the intent is simply to have a chilling effect.
I'd love to know how that compares to the false-negative stats...
I prey we can get facial recognition to the public and we can start publicly tracking politicians and they can own their political decision anywhere they go. Have a CEO that wears fur coats, well facial recognition now knows he eats at starbucks every friday lets go there then and protest. A corrupt politician, oh facial recognition detects them at a conference lets go interrupt it. There will be no hiding in the future and I truly hope this applies to the elite as well. They have more to lose with being tracked then I do.
"This morning the Political Privacy Act was rushed through. MPs are now exempt from all face-recognition systems. The vote was unanimous..."
At first I thought this comment was just funny, then I had the thought that it's actually plausible, then it hit me that it's not only plausible but inevitable.
Politicians have something of a track record of exempting themselves from "security" laws...
Not just inevitable, but it already happened. In 1992 the US Government banned people from receiving radio in certain 800MHz bands, because someone listened in on a politicians analog cell phone call. I'll let RadioReference say it:
"The motivation for this amendment had to do with an analog AMPS cellular telephone call into a political conference call made from Florida by now-incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner in which there was discussion of the ethics charges against then-speaker Newt Gingrich; a recording was made of the call and given to a Democratic Florida politician and whackiness ensued."
The AMPS systems that were impacted have been shut down for more than a decade, but you still can't purchase a radio receiver without that 'Cellular Blocking' enabled.
[1] https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Cell_blocked
"The motivation for this amendment had to do with an analog AMPS cellular telephone call into a political conference call made from Florida by now-incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner in which there was discussion of the ethics charges against then-speaker Newt Gingrich; a recording was made of the call and given to a Democratic Florida politician and whackiness ensued."
The AMPS systems that were impacted have been shut down for more than a decade, but you still can't purchase a radio receiver without that 'Cellular Blocking' enabled.
[1] https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Cell_blocked
Do you think that anyone could run SQL queries on that database? Only government people will have access to it, the politicians can add a new law to exclude themselves from the database searches.
No, but it doesn't matter: trivial and quick to make your own database, and with cellphone cams getting better and better, it'll be more and more accurate and good luck detecting someone doing this.
I do not understand how citizens can benefit by the government installing cameras and face recognition software?
Can you explain in more detail what do you mean? I hope you do not suggest citizens install also cameras and put the videos on the web, then we have private companies and citizens tracking us not only the government. And I assume when a minister receives a bribe he will not be meeting with the person in a public place.
Can you explain in more detail what do you mean? I hope you do not suggest citizens install also cameras and put the videos on the web, then we have private companies and citizens tracking us not only the government. And I assume when a minister receives a bribe he will not be meeting with the person in a public place.
This will not happen. Mind you, they have the right to privacy!
How does this fit into GDPR? I can't see any reasonable claim that they need this personal data (and what's more personal than my face?) for processing purposes.
Easy enough via "processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person", or "processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller", and such.
> "processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person"
ICO says "The processing must be necessary. If you can reasonably protect the person’s vital interests in another less intrusive way, this basis will not apply." which cuts out that excuse because, since I'm not dead and the majority of Londoners are also not dead, the police seem to be "reasonably protect[ing]" our "vital interests in another less intrusive way".
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
ICO says "The processing must be necessary. If you can reasonably protect the person’s vital interests in another less intrusive way, this basis will not apply." which cuts out that excuse because, since I'm not dead and the majority of Londoners are also not dead, the police seem to be "reasonably protect[ing]" our "vital interests in another less intrusive way".
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
Exactly how much power does the ICO have over the Met?
https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-bl...
> It has now issued an Enforcement Notice, compelling the MPS to ensure it complies with data protection laws in future and has given them six months to make these changes, which the MPS has accepted and already started to implement.
Enough, apparently.
> It has now issued an Enforcement Notice, compelling the MPS to ensure it complies with data protection laws in future and has given them six months to make these changes, which the MPS has accepted and already started to implement.
Enough, apparently.
That's not really that relevant after 29 March 2019.
GDPR will still apply, at least for a while - https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/31772/gdpr-and-br...
Plus it'll still apply to European citizens, won't it? And I'm reasonably sure there's more than a non-zero number of those in Central London on any given day.
Plus it'll still apply to European citizens, won't it? And I'm reasonably sure there's more than a non-zero number of those in Central London on any given day.
Gdpr is for persons in the union, not citizens, and especially not citizens while abroad.
I'm confused by this comment. Can you clarify?
The gdpr applies to anyone or any company inside the European Union. It does not apply only to citizens of the EU, and does not apply to them in dealings with foreign companies _while abroad_.
The main exception is companies abroad who specifically make an effort to deal with those in the EU. This is why companies have begun blocking eu traffic as it's not clear exactly what that means. The recitals and most other interpretations lead one to believe you would need to specifically advertise or otherwise target those in the EU, but again, it hasn't been hashed out in court.
The main exception is companies abroad who specifically make an effort to deal with those in the EU. This is why companies have begun blocking eu traffic as it's not clear exactly what that means. The recitals and most other interpretations lead one to believe you would need to specifically advertise or otherwise target those in the EU, but again, it hasn't been hashed out in court.
> does not apply to them in dealings with foreign companies _while abroad_
Of course, if you're defining "foreign companies" as "companies who have no dealings with EU citizens", the GDPR doesn't apply.
> The gdpr applies to anyone or any company inside the European Union.
I believe this should be "anyone or any company which has dealings with anyone inside the European Union", no? Which is quite the difference.
Of course, if you're defining "foreign companies" as "companies who have no dealings with EU citizens", the GDPR doesn't apply.
> The gdpr applies to anyone or any company inside the European Union.
I believe this should be "anyone or any company which has dealings with anyone inside the European Union", no? Which is quite the difference.
> anyone or any company which has dealings with anyone inside the European Union
That is incorrect and was the subject of the last paragraph of my previous message.
That is incorrect and was the subject of the last paragraph of my previous message.
When facial recognition is ubiquitous we will all wear masks.
Okay, let's jump forward in time a little ...
When FR is ubiquitous, we'll need a different mask for each section of the journey to prevent being tracked end to end.
Also Gait-DNA will soon be ready to implement, of course it'll be tested on existing "footage" first ... then it's not a huge jump to mapping your current disguised journey (say from home to work, at regular intervals) to some saved recordings from when you we're unmasked.
Fine for those who can change their routine perhaps, but less so for the great majority.
When FR is ubiquitous, we'll need a different mask for each section of the journey to prevent being tracked end to end.
Also Gait-DNA will soon be ready to implement, of course it'll be tested on existing "footage" first ... then it's not a huge jump to mapping your current disguised journey (say from home to work, at regular intervals) to some saved recordings from when you we're unmasked.
Fine for those who can change their routine perhaps, but less so for the great majority.
Facial recognition is disturbing because it's one step closer to a system can't be voted out of office or overthrown by revolution. That is the dead-end I fear for humanity.