 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think it should be used by the police or do you think it is an invasion of privacy x"
no they send enough innocent people in jail without keeping more detailed records police government councils money grabbing corrupt fucks
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
At the moment it is flawed, in so many ways. The people who will say it's ok because they haven't done any wrong need to look at it's success rate and the fact that it's 'identifying' people who haven't done anything.
It's a tool but I think the case being brought is worth pursuing. We already have more surveillance than almost anywhere else in the world.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"On the news someone is suing the police for using facial recognition without his consent. 1st of its kind x"
Isn't that rather like suing the operator for being observed on CCTV without consent? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Severely flawed on many different levels.
Over the years having seen so many threads and comments on here about protecting privacy and personal civil rights, I find it quite extraordinary that anyone would not have any problem with the use of the system in its current form.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Severely flawed on many different levels.
Over the years having seen so many threads and comments on here about protecting privacy and personal civil rights, I find it quite extraordinary that anyone would not have any problem with the use of the system in its current form.
"
I would be worried about the database x
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
Apologies for my erroneous apostrophe. It's bothering me.
In response to the CCTV posts - the CCTV isn't being kept on a national database that can be accessed by the police at any time.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"On the news someone is suing the police for using facial recognition without his consent. 1st of its kind x"
Sure he’d be fine with it if it was someone else, and that person had committed a criminal act against him or a loved one. He may find it perfectly acceptable then.
They should make it the last of it’s kind too xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Apologies for my erroneous apostrophe. It's bothering me.
In response to the CCTV posts - the CCTV isn't being kept on a national database that can be accessed by the police at any time.
"
Educate me. How is facial recognition being used? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What's the difference between being misidentified by the Mk 1 eyeball of a law enforcement official, and being misidentified by a software based system. The results/consequences are exactly the same? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Apologies for my erroneous apostrophe. It's bothering me.
In response to the CCTV posts - the CCTV isn't being kept on a national database that can be accessed by the police at any time.
Educate me. How is facial recognition being used?"
Technically it is still in the trial stage. Look up the reports on the problems with the trial. Here's one of the stories:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facial-recognition-london-inaccurate-met-police-trials-a8898946.html
The intention is that it will just be used to identify people and data cleared after a month but this is all development stuff that could be changed. It's private companies that are developing the programmes and will storing the data. There will be arguments to keep data for longer.
This is thin end of the wedge stuff. I accept that technology is moving faster than the law can keep up but just because we can do something is not an argument for doing it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Apologies for my erroneous apostrophe. It's bothering me.
In response to the CCTV posts - the CCTV isn't being kept on a national database that can be accessed by the police at any time.
Educate me. How is facial recognition being used?
Technically it is still in the trial stage. Look up the reports on the problems with the trial. Here's one of the stories:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facial-recognition-london-inaccurate-met-police-trials-a8898946.html
The intention is that it will just be used to identify people and data cleared after a month but this is all development stuff that could be changed. It's private companies that are developing the programmes and will storing the data. There will be arguments to keep data for longer.
This is thin end of the wedge stuff. I accept that technology is moving faster than the law can keep up but just because we can do something is not an argument for doing it.
"
If it's really wrong 96% of the time, then it's hardly likely to be adopted. Either way, there's no difference to being misidentified by an official, or a witness come to that, and that happens all the time. Should witnesses who misidentify people as suspects be sued or legally held to account? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I’d be fine, I’m totally unrecognisable without writing covering my face in some way. All a cunning plan to keep my anonymity from everyone...except for when I’m recognised, it’s working well, haha x Could be the glitch that they don’t consider  (I may be a little bit overtired) x Viv |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Apologies for my erroneous apostrophe. It's bothering me.
In response to the CCTV posts - the CCTV isn't being kept on a national database that can be accessed by the police at any time.
Educate me. How is facial recognition being used?
Technically it is still in the trial stage. Look up the reports on the problems with the trial. Here's one of the stories:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facial-recognition-london-inaccurate-met-police-trials-a8898946.html
The intention is that it will just be used to identify people and data cleared after a month but this is all development stuff that could be changed. It's private companies that are developing the programmes and will storing the data. There will be arguments to keep data for longer.
This is thin end of the wedge stuff. I accept that technology is moving faster than the law can keep up but just because we can do something is not an argument for doing it.
If it's really wrong 96% of the time, then it's hardly likely to be adopted. Either way, there's no difference to being misidentified by an official, or a witness come to that, and that happens all the time. Should witnesses who misidentify people as suspects be sued or legally held to account?"
I'm more concerned with the data storage and how that might be mined. Data is the real prize here, as it is with everything now.
It's not here yet but DNA submitted to genealogy testing companies is being being sold and used in America as part of policing, even though it might be incorrect (twins, familial matches).
We give up so much of our data now and we are putting it in the hands of people who 'own' it for a profit. These trials may have a benevolent crime solving aim but we need to regulations sorted first.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Apologies for my erroneous apostrophe. It's bothering me.
In response to the CCTV posts - the CCTV isn't being kept on a national database that can be accessed by the police at any time.
Educate me. How is facial recognition being used?
Technically it is still in the trial stage. Look up the reports on the problems with the trial. Here's one of the stories:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facial-recognition-london-inaccurate-met-police-trials-a8898946.html
The intention is that it will just be used to identify people and data cleared after a month but this is all development stuff that could be changed. It's private companies that are developing the programmes and will storing the data. There will be arguments to keep data for longer.
This is thin end of the wedge stuff. I accept that technology is moving faster than the law can keep up but just because we can do something is not an argument for doing it.
If it's really wrong 96% of the time, then it's hardly likely to be adopted. Either way, there's no difference to being misidentified by an official, or a witness come to that, and that happens all the time. Should witnesses who misidentify people as suspects be sued or legally held to account?
I'm more concerned with the data storage and how that might be mined. Data is the real prize here, as it is with everything now.
It's not here yet but DNA submitted to genealogy testing companies is being being sold and used in America as part of policing, even though it might be incorrect (twins, familial matches).
We give up so much of our data now and we are putting it in the hands of people who 'own' it for a profit. These trials may have a benevolent crime solving aim but we need to regulations sorted first.
"
On data storage I'm inclined to agree, but contrary to popular belief law enforcement agencies don't keep irrelevant data, or they should have procedures in place to prevent that.
If it is used as an investigate or crime prevention tool with regard to known bad guys I really don't have a problem with it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ky19Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
No. Get rid of it quick.
This is always how it starts. Being presented as something that's beneficial for us.
We will be hearing a lot of this on the news over and over about how we should have facial recognition everywhere until the idea becomes normal to us.
The old salesman tactic of convincing us we have a problem and luckily they have a solution for us, when actually we can manage without it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"No. Get rid of it quick.
This is always how it starts. Being presented as something that's beneficial for us.
We will be hearing a lot of this on the news over and over about how we should have facial recognition everywhere until the idea becomes normal to us.
The old salesman tactic of convincing us we have a problem and luckily they have a solution for us, when actually we can manage without it."
I suppose it is a cost cutting measure also why have extra policing when a computer can do it x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
