5 ms·

No, it is not exactly the same, things have shifted a lot in the last 20 years ago. It used to be "what a police officer happened to see while he was driving do

No, it is not exactly the same, things have shifted a lot in the last 20 years ago. It used to be "what a police officer happened to see while he was driving down the street in his car", now it is rapidly becoming "what could have a police officer possibly seen at any time and in any location, in all EM wavelengths, tied into massive identifying databases". That is a massive shift in power to the police, its important to proceed cautiously, a free society is much more important than catching criminals.

pointyhat 15y ago
My point entirely. Thank you for such an elegant description.
robhawkes 15y ago
Nothing like facial recognition would ever be allowed to be used as evidence, especially in the way I envisage it being used here. It's about helping to narrow down the options so the police can get on with their traditional lines of enquiry, like gathering evidence, etc. There is no shift in power to the police, they don't have access to any extra data, just the results. We need to stop being afraid of the potential uses of technology, we'll never get anywhere that way. Also, I am not claiming that this is a) the right solution, or b) socially acceptable just yet. We need to tackle those issues, rather than turn away from the technology because of potential futures.
- throwaway32 15y ago
  Lets take a hypothetical example, say every CCTV camera in London that is available to the police is tied into facial recognition databases, then those results are stored by the police; They then gain a massive database of the movement of people that would otherwise have not been available. The important thing here is that none of this requires additional data. Even if none of this data is in any way admissible in court (it is and has been in the past), that still gives the police massive leverage over knowing innocent (remember innocent until proved guilty ) people's movements, without consent, probably without knowledge. How you can claim an idea like this isnt a shift in power to the police escapes me.

pointyhat 15y ago

My point entirely. Thank you for such an elegant description.

robhawkes 15y ago

Nothing like facial recognition would ever be allowed to be used as evidence, especially in the way I envisage it being used here. It's about helping to narrow down the options so the police can get on with their traditional lines of enquiry, like gathering evidence, etc. There is no shift in power to the police, they don't have access to any extra data, just the results. We need to stop being afraid of the potential uses of technology, we'll never get anywhere that way. Also, I am not claiming that this is a) the right solution, or b) socially acceptable just yet. We need to tackle those issues, rather than turn away from the technology because of potential futures.

throwaway32 15y ago
Lets take a hypothetical example, say every CCTV camera in London that is available to the police is tied into facial recognition databases, then those results are stored by the police; They then gain a massive database of the movement of people that would otherwise have not been available. The important thing here is that none of this requires additional data. Even if none of this data is in any way admissible in court (it is and has been in the past), that still gives the police massive leverage over knowing innocent (remember innocent until proved guilty ) people's movements, without consent, probably without knowledge. How you can claim an idea like this isnt a shift in power to the police escapes me.