3 ms·

Will make life easier for criminals. I would love to have the arsonists who put my home on fire identified and safely locked away by a good camera. they would h

Will make life easier for criminals. I would love to have the arsonists who put my home on fire identified and safely locked away by a good camera. they would have had to deal with an 'attempted manslaughter' charge so they might have been prevented from causing other victims trouble for a while. So I'd love it if this exemption for security projects includes surveillance just outside the home.

Lammy 7y ago
I was with you for the first sentence, but the criminals I'm afraid of are NSA/GCHQ/FVEY/etc who absolutely would never abide by some silly "ban" on a technology like this.
- timwaagh 7y ago
  Of course, secret agents play by different rules. In the EU intelligence agencies generally aren't as intimidating so it's less of a concern. But if you do have reason to worry about this, investing in this technology might help a bit with spotting spies.
  - ginko 7y ago
    >But if you do have reason to worry about this, investing in this technology might help a bit with spotting spies. This seems really doubtful. If anything the wide availability of commercial surveillance data would be a treasure trove for intelligence agencies to sift through.
  - Lammy 7y ago
    Yep, that’s exactly my fear. If we collectively think of it as banned then we will have no societal defense for it.
shkkmo 7y ago
I'm pretty sure a reasonable exception could be made for use limited facial recognition on subjects with a warrant. > Exceptions to the ban could be made for security projects as well as research and development, the paper said. That is very different from allowing homeowners to automatically identify all people in public places outside their homes.
- timwaagh 7y ago
  i guess that was wishful thinking on my part. Although it's not clear what 'security projects' will be allowed.
simion314 7y ago
I agree with you that crimes like kidnappings would be solved faster but only for a short while, it is like fingerprinting today the criminals know to not leave them behind. The issue people have with this surveillance is the abuse that always happens by the government or private companies. For protecting your private property you should be able to film your property and provide the video to the police. For crime in public places maybe you can have cameras that are offline and that overwrite the video every n hours,if a crime happens then the police can ask a judge for a warrant only for the cameras in the locations connected to the crime, then using that warrant someone can get the physical key to access the cameras video, I think this system can help with crime and make the abuse harder, when I am thinking at abuse I am thinking at police or other employees checking on who they want, find all their movements, find who they talked to and politicians can abuse it to find dirt and blackmail their opponents, journalists and critics.

Lammy 7y ago

I was with you for the first sentence, but the criminals I'm afraid of are NSA/GCHQ/FVEY/etc who absolutely would never abide by some silly "ban" on a technology like this.

timwaagh 7y ago
Of course, secret agents play by different rules. In the EU intelligence agencies generally aren't as intimidating so it's less of a concern. But if you do have reason to worry about this, investing in this technology might help a bit with spotting spies.
- ginko 7y ago
  >But if you do have reason to worry about this, investing in this technology might help a bit with spotting spies. This seems really doubtful. If anything the wide availability of commercial surveillance data would be a treasure trove for intelligence agencies to sift through.
- Lammy 7y ago
  Yep, that’s exactly my fear. If we collectively think of it as banned then we will have no societal defense for it.

shkkmo 7y ago

I'm pretty sure a reasonable exception could be made for use limited facial recognition on subjects with a warrant. > Exceptions to the ban could be made for security projects as well as research and development, the paper said. That is very different from allowing homeowners to automatically identify all people in public places outside their homes.

timwaagh 7y ago
i guess that was wishful thinking on my part. Although it's not clear what 'security projects' will be allowed.

simion314 7y ago

I agree with you that crimes like kidnappings would be solved faster but only for a short while, it is like fingerprinting today the criminals know to not leave them behind. The issue people have with this surveillance is the abuse that always happens by the government or private companies. For protecting your private property you should be able to film your property and provide the video to the police. For crime in public places maybe you can have cameras that are offline and that overwrite the video every n hours,if a crime happens then the police can ask a judge for a warrant only for the cameras in the locations connected to the crime, then using that warrant someone can get the physical key to access the cameras video, I think this system can help with crime and make the abuse harder, when I am thinking at abuse I am thinking at police or other employees checking on who they want, find all their movements, find who they talked to and politicians can abuse it to find dirt and blackmail their opponents, journalists and critics.