Hurd also said it would be too much work for police to obey the law.
And it's rather a faff for me to do that as well, would that work as a defense m'lord?
Opposition MPs have debated whether automated facial recognition technology should be used at all in the UK, after a pressure group mounted legal challenges against police use of face-scanning equipment. People shopping in Piccadilly Circus, London Who's watching you from an unmarked van while you shop in London? Cops with …
The same standard for taking and storing fingerprints should apply to face recognition, DNA or any other biometric data.
For fingerprints and DNA, a proper sample can be taken only with the knowledge (not necessarily willing consent) of the subject. For face recognition and some other biometric data this can be done remotely without the knowledge and consent of the subject.
Under GDPR legislation this should be considered to be personal data with all the protection this is designed to entail and prevent intrusive face recognition being applied.
100% false positives means it is pretty worthless (at the moment) anyway!
Despite the brexitters rants about "taking back control", the UK governments have always done what they want anyway... But just in case they can't get away with it indefintely, why do you think they all want to leave the EU? They watch your web visits, restrict your access to legal porn, and trample all over your privacy. Thanks to brainless voters, this will only get worse if we leave.
I do not think that I have ever read anything that quite so spectacularly misses the point! I mean the EU bringing in mandatory speed control technology; black box recorders and eCall notwithstanding, the whole point of leaving the EU is that we reduce the number of law makers and those that remain are far more accountable to the people that vote for them.
Perhaps the greatest example of this in action is our current parliament. For years it has blamed the EU for every undemocratic action it has ever taken; it is completely unprepared to take responsibility for itself which is why both of the main political parties are collapsing and it is becoming seriously threatened by people and parties that are prepared to be representative (or populist as some term it).
As we develop a more representative parliament (which granted will take time), these laws will have no place in our country, but we cannot expect this to happen over night when our parliament has used the stock excuse of "don't blame us, it is all coming from Europe" for the last 40 years.
And if you want evidence of this, just look how scared both Labour and the Conservatives are about holding European elections!
Much as I love the idea, you are overly optimistic in assuming that we will be allowed to "develop a more representative democracy". One of the reasons I am against leaving the EU is that it has given this country the closest thing to a written, enforceable constitution in its history. There is no way we are going to get that again any time this millennium, so all the talk about "taking back control" really just... talk.
No, it wont get worse or better. What it will mean is that HMG cant blame the EU and therefore when the idiot voters that keep putting Labout and Conservative parties in power see that those parties are full of idiots like May and Matt Hancock what to stick their ignorant 2 pennorth in and make life worse for us all, lying as they also do all the time, maybe, just maybe, those ignorant voters will put their mark elsewhere on the ballot paper (I honestly dont hold out much hope of this, my mum makes decisions based on whether the party leaders suit fits!)
But hey ho, Brexit wont make a squat with this (unfortunately)
Not sure how highly regarded Ms May is among the police.
I suspect wearing a Theresa May mask may involve a few "accidental" shootings
How many deliberate shootings - by people on themselves when they think they may've inhaled the same air she recently exhaled?
You can only stand if you have the money to be able to.
If you think you have a platform that people will support, raising a few thousand from potential voters shouldn't be difficult. If you can't raise it, you're clearly running on a platform people aren't interested in.
Sure, you can pay it all yourself if you're just running for your own amusement or vanity, but that's not what elections are there to encourage.
In order to encourage only serious candidates to stand, a £500 deposit is required when submitting the nomination papers - returned if the candidate receives over five per cent of the total votes cast.
Put on a list, certainly. It will crop up the next time you renew a passport or something.
Saw that on my nephew's stuff once. Police check when applying for a job.
A list of dates, "charged with", and the crimes the scumbags falsely charged him with.
Not one mention of the outcomes, charges either dropped or found "not guilty" at trial. Some of the charges were, shall we say, "forcibly dropped" at the beak's insistence.
They love pointing out someone was "investigated", "interviewed in connection with" (ie they were the main witness but the police took a dislike to you since you didn't say everything they "encouraged" you to say - so they word things to make it sound like you were guilty or an accomplice), and if they really want to cause upset "charged with..." even though they dismiss the charges before they get to court it stays on your record and there is no need for them to declare the results. They don't ever say "We knew this was bogus therefore dropped the charges", they just say "we charged him with carnal knowledge of the neighbour's rooster" or some other fluff.
Amazing what harm a few little words can do :(
well, clearly, if you see information that you're going to be filmed and you turn away or pull over a coat over your face, YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE. Which is more than good enough as "reasonable suspicion" for cops to stop you. The government knows the resistance is futile and they carry on with full awareness people can do _nothing_ about it.
As to the minister's 'not a surveillance state' response, it's got no weight whatsoever. It's the usual parliementary game of farts, i.e. the opposition send a fart to score a point or two and show they're doing their job and hopefully, stay for the next term, and your job, as a minister, is to send another boring, predicatable fart in reply, never mind any links to facts, next! After all, with all you mugs happily giving up so much personal data to facebook, etc., because FREE!!!!, no government needs to worry about public backlash which might convert into mild risk at the election ballot box. People will always get fucked while on their back thinking of England.
last week there was a a hurrah-spiel on the beeb that soon you'll be able to board a plane at Heathrow WITHOUT [showing] YOUR PASSPORT, because of all that hi-tec, revolutionary, breakthrough, super-cool, money-time-stress saving FACE RECOGNITION technology, fuck YEAH!
And, when you think of it, why not? A perfect start to a trial mass surveillance, because of the sheer volume of bodies and because only a tiny number would object (and then you can claim "the public was overwhelmingly in support"). And with the juicy PB of data available to the appropriate gov bodies, you expand the system, cross-referencing with mass-transport face recognition system (think of the children! think of the terrorists!) and street cameras. I'm sure Chines friends would be able to suggest how to improve the system, like making life difficult for those deemed "not yet compliant with state regulations". And why not combine it with the Russian model already in place, i.e. unpaid debt - no travel abroad. It is very likely I'll live till the point when "1984" becomes a very much outdated and faded blueprint. Love the State as much as the State loves You!
To get better compliance, you have lots of queues that use scanners and nearly none (working) for those that want to opt-out.
Anyplace there is a choke point will be fitted with cameras and scanners.
The data formats will be antiquated and well documented (there will be documents for the companies bidding that specify all aspects of how the data will be managed). Some gov worker will one day be taking home a laptop/tablet with millions of people's information and it will be stolen from that worker's car as they stop to ___________________. Usually, they are stopping at a church and they will have left the device in plain view on a seat. The info will get sold to commercial entities which have their own scanning network in shops, car parks, etc and can combine the government data for a more accurate fix on who they are scanning. In return, the government can subpoena that information and get a wider picture of anybody they like whether they are on public or private property. Add to that the spy devices that people have paid for and fitted themselves and it's "A Brave New World".
"Most ordinary folks don't care"
Most people don't know the difference between secrecy and privacy.
There will be a vague "I don't like it" and, perhaps, they won't shop there that day, but pretty soon they'll be back because the shop is walking distance from their flat and they can't be bothered to go out of their way for just some eggs. Before long, they will have conditioned their brain to just ignore the notice anytime they see it.
"forensically" sounds like hyperbole. However, I believe the reason is that some people have claimed rape only for it to emerge that messages they had sent showed that they had consented to the encounter. I seem to remember in one case messages showed that the complainant had a history of this behaviour.
I understand that it is distressing for genuine victims but allowing people to make false allegations just creates a new set of victims.
I didn’t say it was trivial to prove.
I said consent can be withdrawn, so even proof of intended consent isn’t proof of consent.
The burden of proof in rape cases is difficult - because I don’t think we should lower the burden of proof it in many cases the nature of the act means it is difficult to prove what actually happened.
Believe it or not there are plenty of other approaches that can tackle this problem you mention. But they might add 0.01% to the police budget requirement so Theresa May would rather just invade the privacy of vulnerable people.
P.S. I think you mean 'overly dramatic' - it's not hyperbole if it's factually correct.
"I understand that it is distressing for genuine victims but allowing people to make false allegations just creates a new set of victims."
False allegations also make it more difficult for real victims. That was the case 40 years and more ago and no doubt still is. It looks as if we've been through a period where allegations were looked at less sceptically than previously and that resulted in a number of cases collapsing so we're now seeing a reaction to that.
No. You need to vary your sources a bit.
There is simply new paperwork to standardise existing stuff regarding permissions, changing nothing. And the thing that doesn't change is that sometimes without mobile evidence (texts etc) a case cannot be proven, so permission is requested. It is not a requirement to start a case, and not used unless it becomes needed further down the line.
So no change other than a standard form instead of ad-hoc per-force efforts. Also, not targeting rape victims or any other specific crime type, just a general permissions form.
I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just that it has not changed other than the paperwork. Stop believing sensationalist press items.
The problem is that 399 out of every 400 men has never committed rape, so any rape accusation against them is inherently false.
It's important that this vast majority of men is allowed to defend themselves against the malicious, wrongful or misplaced accusations that would otherwise ruin their lives.
I fully support gentle and understanding treatment for victims of rape, but I also demand justice for victims of false rape accusations.
Passport control is much much simpler, you've got one stored photo (based on the passport being presented) and are comparing it to another live photo all the computer needs to do is be 90% sure it is a match (or pick your own tollerance). You also have to look at the camera just the right way, with perfect lighting, possibly no glasses, definitely no hats etc.
In comparison trying to match thousands of moving people wearing anything against hundreds of pictures, both of which might be poor quality is a really really hard problem.
There should also be the airline data of who is on a flight so the system isn't trying to match loads of people, just a plane load. If they can't get a match, the person can be diverted to a human Checker.
I have no doubt that a system can be designed and built that works very well for something like customs and border checks, but mission creep rears its ugly head and it will be deployed everywhere else. Why shouldn't court houses and the Tube system be just as secure (although "secure" is fungible)?
I had a customs agent in NY spend so much time grilling me on why I'd want to take a holiday in Prague that coupled with the hour it took to get my bag, I missed my connecting flight to Los Angeles. Little things like this done randomly will have lots of sheep baaaing for an automated system. The less human contact the better it seems these days. Look at how many people will rub their thumbs raw texting and never think to call when somebody doesn't get right back to them.
"If it doesn't work then why can I go through passport control using facial recognition?"
And how does it work in passport control when you aren't quite standing in the right place or facing the right way or the suns reflecting off your glasses/sunglasses?
The police manage to put up millions of spy cameras and then claim they are not on, are not working properly, are unable to identify perpetrators. Why are the police spending millions of my pounds on crap that doesnt work.... or are they downright lying about them not working? Given the police are massively lazy about actually investigating any crime I suspect they are downright lying about how ineffective these cameras are.
So I conclude they are effective and are spying on us but dont want us to know which makes it even more suspicious. Do I trust our police? Not a chance, you only have to look at the number of times they have been caught lying and killing innocent people.
A serious crime on Crimewatch will have been perpetrated by a fuzzy blob
Before they stopped the scam of enforcing minor motoring offences by CCTV, we were furnished with crystal clear, high quality footage of our serious infractions of stopping on a single yellow for five minutes (inconviencing no-one), along with the demand for a fine
If I remember correctly, a couple of infra-red LEDs worn at about forehead level are enough to blow out the vision of most CCTV cameras. Being IR, it's not so obvious as walking around with a bright torch strapped to your head, well until the CCTV watchers vector the police to you cos I'm not sure of the legality.
Amazon do a 3w IR Torch for about a tenner. https://amzn.to/2H0w9Tw
I can't see what law you would be breaking by wearing such a device.
Perhaps combining it with a cap with some LEDs around the peak as and the battery could be under the cap for easy of use.
I am sure you would sell loads of them for the next festival where the police are going to use facial recognition tech.
According to UK government recent new laws we can all be thrown in clink for looking at info on the internet that might potentially aid terrorists. Given that blanking out CCTV cameras obviously falls into that category now we have read your post we are all guilty and ready to be dragged away and subjected to the full rubber glove treatment.
.....and that way the failure rate can go way above 100%.....
But maybe our STASI leaders Theresa and Jeremy (Fleming) and Cressida will be trying to make face paint illegal.
"deployments by London’s Met Police in the Westfield Stratford shopping centre resulted in a 100 per cent false positive rate."
Dear citizen, we are proud to mention some new rules that have just been made law:
These laws are for your own benefit, because errm Huawei, terrorists, and thinking of the children.
Problem with surveillance is its almost always used to gain unfair advantage.
if everybody can surveil anybody at any time ,anonymously , without censor surveillance could be justified. That would level the playing field.
Because then no one would have any advantage over anyone else.
anyting one part of society has .all the rest of society should have in order to maintain balance of power, and natural motivation to tread lightly when doing anything that can affect others.
I think it is true if you look at any state, the more the gulf between the tiny % at the very top of assets and the rest of us grows the more they feel the need to monitor the plebs and to stamp hard on any uprising that threatens their lavish and unwarranted lifestyle. I know the Notre Dam thing in France was bad (how come the idiots restoring these places dont have fire extinquishers on site... did they not learn from Windsor) but to find the very very very rich able to just dig into their pockets for billions to rebuild it while there are people relying on foodbanks, living outside under cardboard or in 3rd world countries starving to death has to be disgusting and the only way to support this is a police state to keep us in our place.
Easy fix - and the Goverment won't like it, but can't do anything about it.
Everyone needs to wear a burka, screw facial recognition and if anyone complains you can cry foul and say its part of your religion.
Or if your brave, wear a balaclava instead - aka the Irish burka.
If your really brave, wear a clown mask - everyone will likely run away and you can beat the crowds as a two-for.
Or wear the guy fawkes mask to make a point while your at it.
I just wish there was a real Rorschach mask - that would be cool.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021