2 ms·
It might have benevolent intentions, but it's often very dangerous to put these technologies into the hands of law enforcement. It reminds me of an incident in
by n4r9 7y ago
It might have benevolent intentions, but it's often very dangerous to put these technologies into the hands of law enforcement.
It reminds me of an incident in the UK a few years ago, when the Metropolitan (London) police trialed a facial recognition camera on the high street. One man reacted by covering up his face as he walked past. He was grabbed aside and ordered to remove the covering. When he responded angrily, he got fined £90 (=$115). It got caught on camera and gives me chills to this day.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moment-police-fine-pedestrian-after-he-covered-face-from-facial-recognition-camera-a4144156.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moment-police-fine-pe...
- dghf 7y ago> It reminds me of an incident in the UK a few years ago It was in January this year: https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/01/man-fined-refusing-show-face-police-face-recognition-software-8425143/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/01/man-fined-refusing-show-face-... But yes, it was very worrying, especially the plains-clothes offficer's assertion that not voluntarily submitting to facial recognition was itself enough to create the reasonable suspicion necessary to compel you to submit to it.
- n4r9 7y agoYou're right. I got confused with this and facial recognition being used at Notting Hill Carnival in 2016 and 2017: https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2017/3628 https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2017/3628