4 ms·

“anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious” So the police demanded to see his identification while having no grounds for s

“anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious” So the police demanded to see his identification while having no grounds for suspecting that the guy had committed, or was about to commit a crime. There are two actual situations which come to mind where the man could have been legally compelled to provide ID: a designated area under the Terrorism Act, and a traffic stop. Neither of those situations apply here. If were in the same situation as this man, I might not be able to hold myself from telling them to piss off too.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
You see someone, they notice a sign "police: cameras being used for facial recognition", one person turns away and immediately seeks to conceal their identity ... I'm sure people will come up with lots of creative reasons why the person covered up but the most likely is because they knew themselves to be a criminal the police would care about. As you consider you would get in the same situation I'm curious why you would cover up? Aside from that, I thought police were using facial recognition in public cctv already. So, I suspect the sign works rather like the "pickpockets in this area" signs that /pickpockets/ put up; they encourage people to reveal themselves. tl;dr is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality?
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality This is a pretty standard “nothing to hide” argument.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    And? One sees it a lot in our town, some groups when they walk past police pull hoods down over their faces, scarves up, turn their faces away -- we have a lot of drug selling, these people match the look of those you see dealing/running (deliveries); or those who do the organised shoplifting. Whilst the rest of us may have lots to hide, our physical appearance isn't one of those things because we don't expect to be subjects of active investigations. Maybe that'll change?
- egoisticalgoat 8y ago
  Sounds like someone has a lot of trust in the police. I don't want my face to end up in any kind of database where the cops could always look up where I've been the past week and track my every movement. Neither do i want tons of recordings from different angles of my face in someone elses hands, due to how easy it is nowadays to plaster my face onto someone else.
- justinclift 8y ago
  > is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality? There are lots of reasons people might want to do this. Including such minor ;) things like "told the wife I was going home, but I'm going out with the boys to the pub". With your face recognised and in a database, it could then come to light at a future point. With your face not in said database, it can't. Pretty simple really.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    >things like "told the wife I was going home, but I'm going out with the boys to the pub" // Do people do that for real, beyond jokes? So the reason is "to enable dishonesty"? I mean everyone with a password or driving license has their face in a database. Meanwhile, the shops you were in know that you were there, Google probably know too ...
    - justinclift 8y ago
      You're really reaching. The first question was pretty much "what reason could there possibly be, other than being a criminal?". I just pointed out there are many "non criminal" reasons people don't want their every move tracked/stored/potentially-disclosed. That was obviously just a simple example. Bearing in mind that what's "not criminal" in your country today may change too. You're not safely excluded. ;)
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        Strikes me you'd want to stop private companies tracking you first, before attempting to cripple police operations. Yes, fascists have taken power. Similarly fascists use guns, so "police shouldn't have guns because with changes in the State this guns can be used against us"? All databases make fascist authoritarianism easier, so no databases? Computers, cars, ... If you think that's all too much, let's step in the mid-ground -- ANPR, a good economical, efficient tool v for law enforcement or a potential fascist instrument that must be outlawed?
- deogeo 8y ago
  > is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality? Yes, organizing a union while avoiding the police helping to blacklist you for your efforts: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    That's very troubling; but to me it seems orthogonal to the matter at hand, in a work environment is not necessary to use overt facial recognition, the absence of overt public facial recognition would seem to make no difference to the ability for police corruption (or gov corrupt use of police resources, as that may well be) to operate in that way. Thanks for sharing; do you disagree with my analysis?
    - deogeo 8y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your analysis. If masks help hide criminal acts, why wouldn't they help hide legal/moral acts? E.g. it's a lot easier to identify everyone at a protest from a photo if they're unmasked.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Fear of false positives?
- yowlingcat 8y ago
  Everyone thinks they've got nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean they should freely cede privacy. How much is your freedom worth?
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    >doesn't mean they should freely cede privacy. // Because... slippery slope? Or do you have something else?
    - yowlingcat 8y ago
      Is that your answer to how much your privacy is worth? It's not just that it's a slippery slope or right or wrong. It comes down to efficacy, false positives, false negatives, chilling effects and abuse risks. There's also the risk of incompetence in implementation and maintenance of these systems, not to mention data leak risks. These things should all play into our conversation about how we debate whether this approach is a net positive or net negative on society. Anything less is intellectually lazy.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        Ok, do I care that the police could know that I was in town on a particular day when that data is going to be used solely to match against current bolos? Not at all; similar to how I don't care my doctor knows what ailments I have. In the same way there are risks of incompetence, and data leaks. False positives and negatives, it strikes me that the risks there are mitigated in the same way as any other single evidentiary point is now, we don't convict people just because they match a description (whether matched by a person or computer in the first instance): that is just an early step in an evidence gathering procedure. What seems like knee-jerk anti-authoritarian Ludditism in this thread - "they" will use it to lock us all up, we must cripple them technologically - doesn't seem to forward the conversation either, so thanks for responding.
- newshorts 8y ago
  It starts with “nothing to hide, so who cares?” It ends with the government having leverage to intimidate and blackmail its own citizens.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    If it's going that way then it's simple to pass a law making hiding your face, at all, unlawful. I don't get the slippery slope argument here -- if you have power to act on it then you have power to make it lawful for you to act on it so you don't need to use overtly gathered past databases. No need for gov to do any of this to blackmail you, plant a record with an ISP arrest you for indecency; much easier?
- acct1771 8y ago
  I am not trying to insult you, but I am legitimately afraid of life in the future, because I know so many people hold your exact opinion on this. And I believe it to be manufactured.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

You see someone, they notice a sign "police: cameras being used for facial recognition", one person turns away and immediately seeks to conceal their identity ... I'm sure people will come up with lots of creative reasons why the person covered up but the most likely is because they knew themselves to be a criminal the police would care about. As you consider you would get in the same situation I'm curious why you would cover up? Aside from that, I thought police were using facial recognition in public cctv already. So, I suspect the sign works rather like the "pickpockets in this area" signs that /pickpockets/ put up; they encourage people to reveal themselves. tl;dr is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality?

saagarjha 8y ago
> is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality This is a pretty standard “nothing to hide” argument.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  And? One sees it a lot in our town, some groups when they walk past police pull hoods down over their faces, scarves up, turn their faces away -- we have a lot of drug selling, these people match the look of those you see dealing/running (deliveries); or those who do the organised shoplifting. Whilst the rest of us may have lots to hide, our physical appearance isn't one of those things because we don't expect to be subjects of active investigations. Maybe that'll change?
egoisticalgoat 8y ago
Sounds like someone has a lot of trust in the police. I don't want my face to end up in any kind of database where the cops could always look up where I've been the past week and track my every movement. Neither do i want tons of recordings from different angles of my face in someone elses hands, due to how easy it is nowadays to plaster my face onto someone else.
justinclift 8y ago
> is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality? There are lots of reasons people might want to do this. Including such minor ;) things like "told the wife I was going home, but I'm going out with the boys to the pub". With your face recognised and in a database, it could then come to light at a future point. With your face not in said database, it can't. Pretty simple really.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >things like "told the wife I was going home, but I'm going out with the boys to the pub" // Do people do that for real, beyond jokes? So the reason is "to enable dishonesty"? I mean everyone with a password or driving license has their face in a database. Meanwhile, the shops you were in know that you were there, Google probably know too ...
  - justinclift 8y ago
    You're really reaching. The first question was pretty much "what reason could there possibly be, other than being a criminal?". I just pointed out there are many "non criminal" reasons people don't want their every move tracked/stored/potentially-disclosed. That was obviously just a simple example. Bearing in mind that what's "not criminal" in your country today may change too. You're not safely excluded. ;)
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Strikes me you'd want to stop private companies tracking you first, before attempting to cripple police operations. Yes, fascists have taken power. Similarly fascists use guns, so "police shouldn't have guns because with changes in the State this guns can be used against us"? All databases make fascist authoritarianism easier, so no databases? Computers, cars, ... If you think that's all too much, let's step in the mid-ground -- ANPR, a good economical, efficient tool v for law enforcement or a potential fascist instrument that must be outlawed?
deogeo 8y ago
> is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality? Yes, organizing a union while avoiding the police helping to blacklist you for your efforts: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  That's very troubling; but to me it seems orthogonal to the matter at hand, in a work environment is not necessary to use overt facial recognition, the absence of overt public facial recognition would seem to make no difference to the ability for police corruption (or gov corrupt use of police resources, as that may well be) to operate in that way. Thanks for sharing; do you disagree with my analysis?
  - deogeo 8y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your analysis. If masks help hide criminal acts, why wouldn't they help hide legal/moral acts? E.g. it's a lot easier to identify everyone at a protest from a photo if they're unmasked.
mikeash 8y ago
Fear of false positives?
yowlingcat 8y ago
Everyone thinks they've got nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean they should freely cede privacy. How much is your freedom worth?
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >doesn't mean they should freely cede privacy. // Because... slippery slope? Or do you have something else?
  - yowlingcat 8y ago
    Is that your answer to how much your privacy is worth? It's not just that it's a slippery slope or right or wrong. It comes down to efficacy, false positives, false negatives, chilling effects and abuse risks. There's also the risk of incompetence in implementation and maintenance of these systems, not to mention data leak risks. These things should all play into our conversation about how we debate whether this approach is a net positive or net negative on society. Anything less is intellectually lazy.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Ok, do I care that the police could know that I was in town on a particular day when that data is going to be used solely to match against current bolos? Not at all; similar to how I don't care my doctor knows what ailments I have. In the same way there are risks of incompetence, and data leaks. False positives and negatives, it strikes me that the risks there are mitigated in the same way as any other single evidentiary point is now, we don't convict people just because they match a description (whether matched by a person or computer in the first instance): that is just an early step in an evidence gathering procedure. What seems like knee-jerk anti-authoritarian Ludditism in this thread - "they" will use it to lock us all up, we must cripple them technologically - doesn't seem to forward the conversation either, so thanks for responding.
newshorts 8y ago
It starts with “nothing to hide, so who cares?” It ends with the government having leverage to intimidate and blackmail its own citizens.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  If it's going that way then it's simple to pass a law making hiding your face, at all, unlawful. I don't get the slippery slope argument here -- if you have power to act on it then you have power to make it lawful for you to act on it so you don't need to use overtly gathered past databases. No need for gov to do any of this to blackmail you, plant a record with an ISP arrest you for indecency; much easier?
acct1771 8y ago
I am not trying to insult you, but I am legitimately afraid of life in the future, because I know so many people hold your exact opinion on this. And I believe it to be manufactured.