King's cross is public transport
Most crimes are committed by members of the public
London cops have admitted they gave photos of people to a property developer to use in a facial-recognition system in the heart of the UK capital. Back in July, Siân Berry, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, asked London Mayor Sadiq Khan whether the Met Police had collaborated with any retailers or other …
I see the ICO only gets involved when it's news and a big breach, other than that they appear to not give a fuck. Reported a car ticketing company that weren't using HTTPS on their site yet requesting quite a lot of ID over their shitting web form (not my ticket).
And while we're at it. Like has been mentioned, does the private company have permission to hold said details? They can't spout the bullshit it's for security so we have a right under GDPR to hold images. People in the area all now need to just throw loads of SAR requests at them until they give in and delete the lot.
Have done that in a Waitrose car park. Parked, shopped, got no ticket but didn't want my plate on their database forever, the parking company. Requested under Right to be Forgotten for it to be removed. They claimed they can keep it for as long as 6 months as they use the ANPR system for CCTV security and nothing to worry about as not getting a ticket. I then pointed out GDPR states ANPR can't be used for CCTV purposes so delete the number plate now please. They did. I requested they also remove it from their backups. They've stopped replying to me now.
I like being an annoying dick at times. Guess its why I have no friends.
Suilvision has compiled the following points to assist in ensuring your business has guidelines to meet the new GDPR Regulations.
All businesses will need to put a risk assessment in place to state the purpose of any ANPR Cameras on site, for example if you are placing cameras on your site to monitor vehicle movements for the purpose of security, access control, vehicle matching or statistical data gathering this will need to be recorded in your risk assessment. If you have installed an ANPR camera system to monitor employees vehicles you must inform the employee highlighting the requirement of the system.
the right to be informed
Signage must be visible to all persons on site stating that ANPR Cameras are in place. It should also state the purpose for the data being collected. It should also detail a contact number for anyone who requires additional details.
request for personal data
Anyone who has had their vehicle captured on ANPR has the right to request their personal data and to ask how their data is used by the company after it has been gathered. The company must provide a copy of the personal data, free of charge and in electronic format if requested. If other vehicles are visible in the image, image redaction should be provided i.e blur out the licence plate of the other vehicles in the image.
The Police may request data from your ANPR system to assist with their normal duties.
If the ANPR companies monitor systems they act as Data Processors under GDPR. “Clients of the ANPR company should have a contract in place which details what the ANPR company may do with the data; what security standards should be in place and what verification procedures may apply.” Any subcontractors working on your behalf, e.g Security companies or Engineers must follow this procedure.
"Does the private company have my consent for holding photos and/or video footage of me ?"
Erm... every single bank, supermarket, petrol station etc etc - tons of private companies - hold video footage of you (and me and everyone else). I actually have no idea if there is any limit on how long they are allowed to keep it (it is, after all, shot on their private property). I presume that they just store it for a few weeks and then overwrite with new footage, but that's probably because they can't monetise it.
Anyone aware of the legal standing of such footage - can it be passed on / sold on, how long it can be stored etc?
They can't pass it on if it includes personally identifiable information, except to third parties processing it on behalf of the video footage owner.
It can't be sold on if it includes personally identifiable information.
It can be stored for as long as there is a legitimate and reasonable purpose for retaining it.
Approximately. Pay a large consultancy a six figure sum if you'd like more information, although I strongly doubt they'll give you certainty either.
sadly (so sad!) "alternative facts" and "fake news" are terms reserved for his arch-enemy, the Man with the Orange Hairdo. Sadiq Khan is above that, he will "delegate" the bad smell, i.e. "the original information THEY provided ... was incorrect", while he, the knight in the shiny armour, has rushed to save us all: "as a matter of urgency I have asked...", etc, etc.
p.s. no, I'm not an open or hidden supporter of that (...) across the pond, anything but. But I have heard more than enough from the current mayor of London on privacy and face recognition to distrust whatever weasel farts his office comes up with.
AC isn't for gammons to come on here with their shit stirring.
The Met Police are notorious for not respecting the law they supposedly uphold, and there are many documented occasions where they've blatantly lied then backtracked under scrutiny.
Until they're eliminated as the source of the misinformation I think I'll withold judgement on the Mayor.
Sadiq Khan : Well, obviously. It was the one question today to which I could give a clear, simple, straightforward, honest answer
MPS : Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
Sadiq Khan : Epistemological? What are you talking about?
MPS : You told a lie.
As a rule of thumb, if heads roll for this in the MPS, then it was the MPS - if the MPS are blamed (as they appear to be in the current form of the answer) but no one is publicly named and shamed, it was Khan's team.
The official record of the question and answers is here:
Given the time frame involved (~6 weeks) between the question and the original answer AND the response being provided during a relatively quiet period in the political calendar, I would suspect Khan's team rather than the police.
If on the other hand it was the MPS that lied and timeframe/release date were coincidental, that was a brave call from the MPS given that it already had some public scrutiny in the media.
Taking about the time frame involved - it could simply be that the enquiries of the ICO at both the landlord and the MPS forced the latter to admit what they'd done. Then told the mayor that they'd 'discovered' some new info. And that's the charitable version of my line of thinking.
My point about the time frame was that Khan's answer wasn't off the cuff or based on partial information. It was a question that appears to have been researched and answered approximately 6 weeks later.
If there was information outstanding, I would have expected an update that the relevant parties had been asked to provide the information.
The site between King's Cross and St Pancras stations (they're next door to each other) is currently dominated by the naked lift cores and four huge tower cranes where work has begun on the building that will be the new UK headquarters for ... *drumroll*... Google. I'm not making this up.
Lift cores are usually marked with the floor number to help the crane operators and steel erectors. These ones are marked with red green yallow and blue heads of the robot from the Android logo. Eurgh,
* icon because Android, and because it just reminded me that El Reg has yet to pick up the week's biggest story in RotM news: a proposal to put AI in charge of nuclear arms ICBMs. WCPGW?? >> https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/strangelove-redux-us-experts-propose-having-ai-control-nuclear-weapons/
“[I]t may be necessary to develop a system based on artificial intelligence, with predetermined response decisions, that detects, decides, and directs strategic forces with such speed that the attack-time compression challenge does not place the United States in an impossible position.”
They missed one key word above:
necessary to develop a system based on artificial intelligence, with predetermined response decisions, that PREDICTS, detects, decides and directs.
Once we get that, we're all done for as soon as the system goes live :)
We can assume it will not be programmed to act like a Soviet Air Force Colonel and to implicitly trust all incoming data sources. It was failing to do that which saved us from a nuclear war. The colonel in question thought the signals were too few to be a first strike. Turned out to be sun flashes on lakes instead of missile launches.
Would an AI react the same way? or respond with an equal response?
> The site between King's Cross and St Pancras stations (they're next door to each other) is currently dominated by the naked lift cores and four huge tower cranes where work has begun on the building that will be the new UK headquarters for ... *drumroll*... Google. I'm not making this up.
My tinfoil hat just rattled off my head.
So the police hand over facial recognition pics to "the developer" who - completely coincidentally - just happens to be building new offices for Google?
Not that all of the cameras will necessarily be visible to the public, but people could start marking the positions of those they can spot, on openstreetmap, as described at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance.
There are already a few marked in the area: https://kamba4.crux.uberspace.de/?lat=51.5320529&lon=-0.1206259&zoom=17
(It would be interested to seeing whether those watching the cameras will spot that people are looking for/at the cameras and making notes, or indeed whether police on the ground would spot it. I'm not sure whether this means it's better or worse to do it as an organized mapping party.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021