Many years ago (early 2000's I think), there was a BBC program about how pervasive surveillance was getting. They followed a group of 20 somethings on a nigh out in Brighton.
They were picked up on a CCTV camera at the end of their street, followed to the bus stop, filmed on the bus, more filming in the high street, the pubs they went to, the nightclub and then all the way home again.
From 8pm through to 2am they were under constant scrutiny of one kind or another.
Obviously, they were aware and the BBC were proving a point but 15years ago there were enough cameras to do this. Ok, it was Brighton so there may have been more cameras than usual then but I would say that every city and major town can do this now.
Now add facial recognition into the mix (and assume it works as advertised) and you have a 1984 level of oversight. We know it does not work as advertised though and this, in some ways, makes it worse. Any time where you have to prove your innocence, the law is the wrong way round - guilty unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. If the computer spews out an incorrect match, you are guilty in the eyes of the police... now prove it was not you!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
