4 ms·

I wonder how you'd avoid this, even if parliament had the inclination. Would private face recognition be banned too? Very soon a CCTV setup without face recogn

I wonder how you'd avoid this, even if parliament had the inclination. Would private face recognition be banned too? Very soon a CCTV setup without face recognition will be out of date. Computer vision-ey stuff is maturing and the list of "trivial" is getting long. It'll probably be implemented in most camera applications. Face recognition, object recognition, all manner of classification. Once your phone organizes and hyperlinks photos this way, it'll seem weird to deny police. I'm not denying there're major rights issues associated with this, just that the technology is set to become so ambient.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I wonder how you'd avoid this, even if parliament had the inclination. You need a populace that overwhelmingly believes it is not ok for the government to operate a surveillance dragnet. Then the politicians will do that. The only reason the government doesn't go full Waco on people who haven't paid their parking tickets is because the overwhelming majority of society don't tolerate that. This is also why it's important to not let this kind of crap be legitimized in the public's mind. Unfortunately it looks like that ship as long since sailed as far as a damp rock off the coast of France is concerned. With all the crap that's being dredged up as a result of Brexit there's still hope for the Irish saying they see what Britain has and they don't want any.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  Exactly, educate the people about it and get them to want it to stop. Unfortunately, most people don't care if it never actually inconveniences them, and "there's a one in a thousand chance this bad thing will happen to you" isn't enough to get them to care. Just look at how many people consider the existence of the TSA normal now.
- dalbasal 7y ago
  Ok. I'm a populace (even a plurality, some days) that overwhelmingly believes it is not ok for the government to operate a surveillance dragnet. How does this translate into practicalities? What laws do I want Westminster or London Assembly to enact? The point I was making earlier is that the distinction between dragnet and regular policing is eroding, as this technology becomes widespread. Presumably it's ok for police to stand at the station and look out for their man, or ask to look at a store's CCTV. We'll... That kind of thing is becoming mediated by software. Upload your CCTV photo to the app, and it finds matches with your target, or multiple targets, or everyone.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    I started to ask if the GDPR applies here, I realized you're in the UK so it wouldn't apply, but have the question anyway: Does the GDPR prevent this?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - arethuza 7y ago
      GDPR most certainly does apply in the UK? We haven't left the EU yet - if we ever will and even if we do we'll still have GDPR like rules in place.
      - dalbasal 7y ago
        EU laws don't directly apply in member states, afaik. The UK wrote their implementation of gdpr into UK law: general data protection act 2018. It's the law unless parliament changes it, Brexit or no Brexit.
        pjc50 7y ago
        The Brexit act grants huge powers to amend law through statutory instrument ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018#Henry_VIII_clauses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Ac... ), although I'm not quite sure whether that applies here.
    - dalbasal 7y ago
      I don't think it does. If I understand correctly, these images would not be considered your private data. It belongs to whoever owns the cameras. Ianal Interesting question though.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      GDPR has a huge law enforcement exemption. The only relevant EU law is probably the ECHR(+) right to privacy. (+) Yes I know this isn't exactly the same
mcv 7y ago
The way to avoid this is to make dazzle makeup fashionable.
- mises 7y ago
  That will work, at first. It is not a long-term solution, as algorithms and technology will simply evolve to recognize in spite of that. The solution, at least for America, is to remind the feds that they have no constitutional power to use facial recognition, for a similar reason that mass surveillance is unconstitutional. It's a breach of the Fourth Amendment Right to security in persons and papers, I would argue (as is TSA), as well as a violation of the Due Process Clause, because it makes every one a suspect (same issue with fingerprints, DNA, etc.). The bottom line should be that law enforcement has no right to do anything, hold information on you, surveil you, or put you through airport security unless you commit a crime. Quite frankly, there should be no such thing as a "watch list" -- they don't get to make you turn over information or treat you as a suspect (note their use of the term "suspicious behavior" - behaving like a suspect - as a justification) when you have done nothing wrong. There was a comment I read on another thread about some one who bought about 20 pressure cookers when they were accidentally marked down for a dollar apiece and had the police called on him. Is that really okay? I have also heard that the FBI is notified if you buy more than a certain quantity of fertilizer. Can a Brit enlighten me as to if there are similar protections or justifications against this technology in England? As mentioned in another comment, this is the gradual erosion. They say "we want to compromise", get some ground, then push more and "compromise" again to push the line further. Trading liberty for security is a risky game.
  - cr0sh 7y ago
    > I have also heard that the FBI is notified if you buy more than a certain quantity of fertilizer. I'm not even sure it matters any longer; have you ever tried to find ammonium nitrate based fertilizer at your typical big-box store? It's pretty much unobtainable unless you're a farmer.
sasasassy 7y ago
In many countries recording someone in public without their consent is simply illegal. If you notice someone caught you in a picture or video, and you visible (not just a blur in a giant mass of people), you can request (force) the person to delete the footage. I've seen this happen multiple times. Concerts and other closed events routinely have as a condition for attendance that you consent to have your photo taken.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>I wonder how you'd avoid this, even if parliament had the inclination. You need a populace that overwhelmingly believes it is not ok for the government to operate a surveillance dragnet. Then the politicians will do that. The only reason the government doesn't go full Waco on people who haven't paid their parking tickets is because the overwhelming majority of society don't tolerate that. This is also why it's important to not let this kind of crap be legitimized in the public's mind. Unfortunately it looks like that ship as long since sailed as far as a damp rock off the coast of France is concerned. With all the crap that's being dredged up as a result of Brexit there's still hope for the Irish saying they see what Britain has and they don't want any.

StavrosK 7y ago
Exactly, educate the people about it and get them to want it to stop. Unfortunately, most people don't care if it never actually inconveniences them, and "there's a one in a thousand chance this bad thing will happen to you" isn't enough to get them to care. Just look at how many people consider the existence of the TSA normal now.
dalbasal 7y ago
Ok. I'm a populace (even a plurality, some days) that overwhelmingly believes it is not ok for the government to operate a surveillance dragnet. How does this translate into practicalities? What laws do I want Westminster or London Assembly to enact? The point I was making earlier is that the distinction between dragnet and regular policing is eroding, as this technology becomes widespread. Presumably it's ok for police to stand at the station and look out for their man, or ask to look at a store's CCTV. We'll... That kind of thing is becoming mediated by software. Upload your CCTV photo to the app, and it finds matches with your target, or multiple targets, or everyone.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  I started to ask if the GDPR applies here, I realized you're in the UK so it wouldn't apply, but have the question anyway: Does the GDPR prevent this?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - arethuza 7y ago
    GDPR most certainly does apply in the UK? We haven't left the EU yet - if we ever will and even if we do we'll still have GDPR like rules in place.
    - dalbasal 7y ago
      EU laws don't directly apply in member states, afaik. The UK wrote their implementation of gdpr into UK law: general data protection act 2018. It's the law unless parliament changes it, Brexit or no Brexit.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        The Brexit act grants huge powers to amend law through statutory instrument ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018#Henry_VIII_clauses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Ac... ), although I'm not quite sure whether that applies here.
  - dalbasal 7y ago
    I don't think it does. If I understand correctly, these images would not be considered your private data. It belongs to whoever owns the cameras. Ianal Interesting question though.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    GDPR has a huge law enforcement exemption. The only relevant EU law is probably the ECHR(+) right to privacy. (+) Yes I know this isn't exactly the same

mcv 7y ago

The way to avoid this is to make dazzle makeup fashionable.

mises 7y ago
That will work, at first. It is not a long-term solution, as algorithms and technology will simply evolve to recognize in spite of that. The solution, at least for America, is to remind the feds that they have no constitutional power to use facial recognition, for a similar reason that mass surveillance is unconstitutional. It's a breach of the Fourth Amendment Right to security in persons and papers, I would argue (as is TSA), as well as a violation of the Due Process Clause, because it makes every one a suspect (same issue with fingerprints, DNA, etc.). The bottom line should be that law enforcement has no right to do anything, hold information on you, surveil you, or put you through airport security unless you commit a crime. Quite frankly, there should be no such thing as a "watch list" -- they don't get to make you turn over information or treat you as a suspect (note their use of the term "suspicious behavior" - behaving like a suspect - as a justification) when you have done nothing wrong. There was a comment I read on another thread about some one who bought about 20 pressure cookers when they were accidentally marked down for a dollar apiece and had the police called on him. Is that really okay? I have also heard that the FBI is notified if you buy more than a certain quantity of fertilizer. Can a Brit enlighten me as to if there are similar protections or justifications against this technology in England? As mentioned in another comment, this is the gradual erosion. They say "we want to compromise", get some ground, then push more and "compromise" again to push the line further. Trading liberty for security is a risky game.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  > I have also heard that the FBI is notified if you buy more than a certain quantity of fertilizer. I'm not even sure it matters any longer; have you ever tried to find ammonium nitrate based fertilizer at your typical big-box store? It's pretty much unobtainable unless you're a farmer.

sasasassy 7y ago

In many countries recording someone in public without their consent is simply illegal. If you notice someone caught you in a picture or video, and you visible (not just a blur in a giant mass of people), you can request (force) the person to delete the footage. I've seen this happen multiple times. Concerts and other closed events routinely have as a condition for attendance that you consent to have your photo taken.