“Live facial recognition is not referenced in a single UK law, has never been debated in Parliament, and is one of the most privacy-intrusive tools ever used in British policing. Parliament should urgently stop police from using this dangerously authoritarian surveillance tech,”
I hear cameras and big sticks don’t ‘gel’ well together… Just a thought.
So balaclavas will become more commonplace as they are a simple way to bypass facial recognition.
If it catches the filthy toe rags who keep mugging and nicking cars then fine.
We don’t have too many examples of technology with clear utility not being used eventually by governments, do we? Seems like wishful thinking that we could stop this.
See also AI.
This is a nightmare scenario unfolding right before our eyes – the UK police are taking us one step closer to a fascist surveillance state with the return of live facial recognition. Our privacy and civil liberties are being trampled on, and it’s time we stand up and fight against this Orwellian nightmare. Say no to Big Brother watching our every move.
It’s funny how i am told the government doesn’t want to control us and here it is, the biggest CCP surveillance system. Remember lockdowns?
Wrote on this for my science communication module in uni, the false positives on these things, especially on black faces, was pretty bad in a live use environment at the time. You could be looking at thousands of faces an hour in busy areas, even with a 99% success rate that’s 100 false positives.
They claim much better rates on false positives currently, but i’m both not inclined to trust their own numbers, and even their reported false positive rate, 1/6000, at scale, is abysmal in terms of privacy invasion or potential false positives leading to false convictions. Put one of these in a town center and you could probably expect one or two false positives DAILY at best
People want to feel safer but don’t want to use the best tools for the jobs
Well my social credit score is gonna fall off a cliff.
[deleted]
Maybe it will identify all the sex offenders in their ranks.
Aren’t these clowns just going to have to use this tech to arrest themselves in a few months given 4/5 are bad (sorry-‘needing review’) according to their own Top dog today?
Edit: Who is downvoting this, that’s literally what the head of the met basically said in his interview 😂
This could be an amazing investigative tool for law enforcement.
As a police officer it’s very frustrating when offenses are captured in cctv but no one can identify the offender. We probably circulate 300 images a week in my force and I imagine atleast 2/3rds don’t get ID’d.
Also how this could protect innocent people, imagine a false allegation is made against you and police can just check where your face has been pinging to show that you were or aren’t in the area at the time. How great would it be to see your face pinging 100 miles away and you’re off the hook without arrest or interview.
I know it seems scary, but if the government really wanted to track you they could send a surveillance team or track your phone or where you credit card is used… the government doesn’t have the time or the interest in doing that… this will make no difference to your average person excepts if they are the victim of a crime committed by a stranger.
This really isn’t that different to a CCTV operator sitting there looking out for certain people or tracing their movements back when they’re suspected of doing something wrong.
The inaccuracies that are portrayed are clearly enough that any identifications are not going to be able to be used as evidence in court. The technology will get it wrong sometimes, just as humans do – as long as the rate isn’t too far off humans I’m not sure it’ll impact people that much.
If you’re OK with walking through a town centre covered in CCTV cameras with someone already watching you, why is it different with a bit more added technology? The police and MI5 really don’t care about you going to get a Greggs for your lunch
Not so keen on them processing data live, but they should absolutely be using facial recognition along with other AI techniques to process submitted CCTV of crime scenes.
I read in a thread a while back that somebody submitted the CCTV of the entrance to the bike storage where their bike was stolen, and the police refused to review it because they’d provided a full day’s footage. AI could locate the relevent bits easily.
Finger prints should be added. Hopefully DNA in the near future. Too many Identity thieves/scammers
Hold up weren’t the Gov criticising China for using facial recognition as if it’s a massive human rights concern… how does this make any sense?
This report is shakey as hell. We know that the trial was biased, because they literally spelled it out for us.
>The strategic, operational and technical objectives of the trial can be summarised as:
a) To g**enerate an evidence-base for the overt use and deployment of LFR technology** as a policing tactic.
>b) To ensure that all relevant legislative provisions are complied with and the overt use and deployment of LFR
for policing purposes meets the oversight and regulation framework outlined in the UK by the Surveillance
Camera Commissioner, the Biometrics commissioner and the Information Commissioner.
c) To **build trust and confidence amongst London’s communities through the overt use and deployment of LFR** technology for policing purposes.
Its not an independent report by any means.
​
Their figures aren’t great either.
In the Notting Hill test, they scanned 100,000 people, there were 96 alerts, 6 were engaged, and one was confmired to be the person they were looking for. So do we congratulate them on scanning 100,000 people who probably weren’t on the list and not arresting them, or point out that 90 people were scanned but not deemed worth stopping by police, and 5 more were checked for no reason?
I’m not sure it’ll be worse than the current system of manhunts based on physical descriptions, or plain-old profiling. But the report paints a very different picture to the article.
Buzzing now the cops have another tool they can utilise in order to ignore rampant burglaries with.
Can someone explain why this is bad to me?
I don’t commit any crimes if it is a way to get better coverage and protection for the general public surly it’s a good thing?
Is this just not an attempt at a solution for the limited police on the street? Instead of giving the police a photo to look for a lostdementia patient they can upload a photo and check their a system has seen them and then go to last known location
[removed]
Can they use it on the met police themselves first ?
Let me guess: certain tories and their FWBs have shares/interests in facial recognition companies.
We trying this shit again?
It doesn’t work. Even a camera that was 99% accurate would get way more false positives than true positives.
And it’s never 99%, they always think 90% is good enough, and are then surprised when it wastes their time
The next step is to use this to enforce 15-minute virtual prison systems. China already is.
It’s interesting seeing how quickly attitudes on here can change. Two years ago, when ‘vaccine passports’ were being promoted , the attitude on here was ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ and ‘the government tracks us all anyway with our mobiles, so nothing changes’ – and yet now, suddenly, the government tracking our movements is scary and a bad thing.
27 comments
“Live facial recognition is not referenced in a single UK law, has never been debated in Parliament, and is one of the most privacy-intrusive tools ever used in British policing. Parliament should urgently stop police from using this dangerously authoritarian surveillance tech,”
I hear cameras and big sticks don’t ‘gel’ well together… Just a thought.
So balaclavas will become more commonplace as they are a simple way to bypass facial recognition.
If it catches the filthy toe rags who keep mugging and nicking cars then fine.
We don’t have too many examples of technology with clear utility not being used eventually by governments, do we? Seems like wishful thinking that we could stop this.
See also AI.
This is a nightmare scenario unfolding right before our eyes – the UK police are taking us one step closer to a fascist surveillance state with the return of live facial recognition. Our privacy and civil liberties are being trampled on, and it’s time we stand up and fight against this Orwellian nightmare. Say no to Big Brother watching our every move.
It’s funny how i am told the government doesn’t want to control us and here it is, the biggest CCP surveillance system. Remember lockdowns?
Wrote on this for my science communication module in uni, the false positives on these things, especially on black faces, was pretty bad in a live use environment at the time. You could be looking at thousands of faces an hour in busy areas, even with a 99% success rate that’s 100 false positives.
They claim much better rates on false positives currently, but i’m both not inclined to trust their own numbers, and even their reported false positive rate, 1/6000, at scale, is abysmal in terms of privacy invasion or potential false positives leading to false convictions. Put one of these in a town center and you could probably expect one or two false positives DAILY at best
People want to feel safer but don’t want to use the best tools for the jobs
Well my social credit score is gonna fall off a cliff.
[deleted]
Maybe it will identify all the sex offenders in their ranks.
Aren’t these clowns just going to have to use this tech to arrest themselves in a few months given 4/5 are bad (sorry-‘needing review’) according to their own Top dog today?
Edit: Who is downvoting this, that’s literally what the head of the met basically said in his interview 😂
This could be an amazing investigative tool for law enforcement.
As a police officer it’s very frustrating when offenses are captured in cctv but no one can identify the offender. We probably circulate 300 images a week in my force and I imagine atleast 2/3rds don’t get ID’d.
Also how this could protect innocent people, imagine a false allegation is made against you and police can just check where your face has been pinging to show that you were or aren’t in the area at the time. How great would it be to see your face pinging 100 miles away and you’re off the hook without arrest or interview.
I know it seems scary, but if the government really wanted to track you they could send a surveillance team or track your phone or where you credit card is used… the government doesn’t have the time or the interest in doing that… this will make no difference to your average person excepts if they are the victim of a crime committed by a stranger.
This really isn’t that different to a CCTV operator sitting there looking out for certain people or tracing their movements back when they’re suspected of doing something wrong.
The inaccuracies that are portrayed are clearly enough that any identifications are not going to be able to be used as evidence in court. The technology will get it wrong sometimes, just as humans do – as long as the rate isn’t too far off humans I’m not sure it’ll impact people that much.
If you’re OK with walking through a town centre covered in CCTV cameras with someone already watching you, why is it different with a bit more added technology? The police and MI5 really don’t care about you going to get a Greggs for your lunch
Not so keen on them processing data live, but they should absolutely be using facial recognition along with other AI techniques to process submitted CCTV of crime scenes.
I read in a thread a while back that somebody submitted the CCTV of the entrance to the bike storage where their bike was stolen, and the police refused to review it because they’d provided a full day’s footage. AI could locate the relevent bits easily.
Finger prints should be added. Hopefully DNA in the near future. Too many Identity thieves/scammers
Hold up weren’t the Gov criticising China for using facial recognition as if it’s a massive human rights concern… how does this make any sense?
This report is shakey as hell. We know that the trial was biased, because they literally spelled it out for us.
>The strategic, operational and technical objectives of the trial can be summarised as:
a) To g**enerate an evidence-base for the overt use and deployment of LFR technology** as a policing tactic.
>b) To ensure that all relevant legislative provisions are complied with and the overt use and deployment of LFR
for policing purposes meets the oversight and regulation framework outlined in the UK by the Surveillance
Camera Commissioner, the Biometrics commissioner and the Information Commissioner.
c) To **build trust and confidence amongst London’s communities through the overt use and deployment of LFR** technology for policing purposes.
Its not an independent report by any means.
​
Their figures aren’t great either.
In the Notting Hill test, they scanned 100,000 people, there were 96 alerts, 6 were engaged, and one was confmired to be the person they were looking for. So do we congratulate them on scanning 100,000 people who probably weren’t on the list and not arresting them, or point out that 90 people were scanned but not deemed worth stopping by police, and 5 more were checked for no reason?
I’m not sure it’ll be worse than the current system of manhunts based on physical descriptions, or plain-old profiling. But the report paints a very different picture to the article.
Buzzing now the cops have another tool they can utilise in order to ignore rampant burglaries with.
Can someone explain why this is bad to me?
I don’t commit any crimes if it is a way to get better coverage and protection for the general public surly it’s a good thing?
Is this just not an attempt at a solution for the limited police on the street? Instead of giving the police a photo to look for a lostdementia patient they can upload a photo and check their a system has seen them and then go to last known location
[removed]
Can they use it on the met police themselves first ?
Let me guess: certain tories and their FWBs have shares/interests in facial recognition companies.
We trying this shit again?
It doesn’t work. Even a camera that was 99% accurate would get way more false positives than true positives.
And it’s never 99%, they always think 90% is good enough, and are then surprised when it wastes their time
The next step is to use this to enforce 15-minute virtual prison systems. China already is.
It’s interesting seeing how quickly attitudes on here can change. Two years ago, when ‘vaccine passports’ were being promoted , the attitude on here was ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ and ‘the government tracks us all anyway with our mobiles, so nothing changes’ – and yet now, suddenly, the government tracking our movements is scary and a bad thing.