UK Police Are Testing Facial Recognition on Christmas Shoppers in London this Week (theverge.com) 91
London's Metropolitan Police is testing its facial recognition technology in the capital this week. From a report: It's the seventh time the Metropolitan Police, the UK capital's police force, has trialled facial recognition in public. The technology has previously been used at large events, including Notting Hill Carnival in 2016 and 2017, and Remembrance Day services last year. This year, the technology is being used Monday and Tuesday of this week in Soho, Piccadilly Circus, and Leicester Square -- all major shopping areas in the heart of the city.
Cameras are fixed to lampposts or deployed on vans, and use software developed by Japanese firm NEC to measure the structure of passing faces. This scan is then compared to a database of police mugshots. The Met says a match via the software will prompt officers to examine the individual and decide whether or not to stop them. Posters will inform the public they're liable to be scanned while walking in certain areas, and the Met says anyone declining to be scanned "will not be viewed as suspicious."
Cameras are fixed to lampposts or deployed on vans, and use software developed by Japanese firm NEC to measure the structure of passing faces. This scan is then compared to a database of police mugshots. The Met says a match via the software will prompt officers to examine the individual and decide whether or not to stop them. Posters will inform the public they're liable to be scanned while walking in certain areas, and the Met says anyone declining to be scanned "will not be viewed as suspicious."
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how you secure a nation aganst extremist muslim terrorism. Dispatch the cucks and get on with securing the country. Churchill would have done it, too.
Churchill was a great war time leader and is rightly commended for that, he was a terribly overhanded peace-time leader though and had more than a few negative characteristics. I've no doubt you're right and Churchill would have approved of this, but that doesn't make it right.
Very few people want to live in an overbearing police state. I certainly wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You, sir, are full of ignorant prejudices.
He may be boorish, but in the morning he will be sober, and you will still be naive.
Re: (Score:2)
For the yanks, it was a Winston Churchill reference.
That's a yikes from me dog. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honest question (Score:2)
Does the UK have a presumption of innocence? Because I seem to recall that maybe it doesn't. And that changes that whole "viewed with suspicion" thing a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the UK have a presumption of innocence? Because I seem to recall that maybe it doesn't. And that changes that whole "viewed with suspicion" thing a lot.
You're probably thinking of France where (at least historically) you had to prove yourself innocent rather than be proven guilty. In the UK you are innocent until proven otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Here you go, AC:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/other-visa-categories/safety.html [state.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Do note however, that these are used along with the required picture to verify the person who was granted the visa is the person attempting to enter the USA
Except where they are from a visa waiver country. Then they will be used for some other unspecified purpose.
Also law enforcement use is only permitted access to this data to identify individuals using biometrics under strict controls.
LOL. Are these the same strict controls that allow US law enforcement to go around shooting black men for minor traffic violations with impunity?
Re: (Score:2)
You folks really need to stop reading the tabloids, and follow up on the cases where officers have been jailed for such behavior. There is no such "impunity"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound as though some of those several hundred aren't justifiable shootings. If you can't do that, we won't be able to come to any agreeable position.
Re: (Score:1)
That's probably enough to cover "some" in your request. Several of those were physically attacked by police and then killed. Only a few were even indicted. And I believe all these date from 2014 or later, so it's not like I even tried ha
Re: (Score:2)
All countries go after criminal suspects. The US even finger prints innocent tourists who plan on spending money in their country. Allies and all. Some friendship.
Citation where the Untied States GOVERNMENT is fingerprinting tourists please...
I'm a US citizen and even I had to have my fingerprints scanned at Immigration coming back from Canada last week.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you didn't have to. You were likely asked and agreed to do so. Some of use Global Entry, and voluntarily do so to skip the long lines. But no American is required to.
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)
The story misses out the nice bit: Literally 100% of the people stopped this year so far by facial recognition were false-positives and released without charge.
Presumption of innocence only affects the courts. Arrest is a mechanism to detain people until you can ascertain if a crime occurred. Even *arrest* isn't subject to a presumption of innocence (you wouldn't slap cuffs on a presumed-innocent person).
Certainly "you look like a guy we are after" (in whatever form - identity parade, cop thinking he recognises you from a poster, targeted facial recognition, etc.) isn't subject to a presumption of innocence in the manner you're referring to. It has nothing to do with the UK, specifically, either.
Fact is, their facial recognition is useless (as is most facial recognition), so if anything all they're EVER doing with it is bothering "innocent" people and showing how useless their own tech is.
*A cop needs to be able to stop you. Presumption of innocence cannot play a part in that. Yes, they can stop you for almost no reason (you look like the guy, or you have the same colour car). It's what they do AFTER that that matters. In the UK, that means they quickly look you up, realise you're not the guy on the database and you walk off. Or you refuse and walk off (they could arrest you but then they could be subject to a lot of problems regarding insufficient cause for arrest).
One of the questions the dickheads that "advise" you what to say to a cop include is "Am I free to go?" It's not a bad question. It's about the only one that an innocent person is likely to ask (all that other refusing-to-co-operate shit is just going to get you arrested, even if that's "wrong").
Arrest is detaining you until the situation is clear.
A charge is alleging that you performed a particular and specific named criminal act.
A conviction is when a judge agrees with the latter.
Arrest may be a pain in the arse, but it's a tool that needs to be used. They have made literally zero proper arrests with this facial recognition stuff. They stopped a few people, confirmed their ID, let them go. They would get better results by just sticking a cop in a market and saying "Do you recognise anyone?"... likely they'll catch at least one person subject to a public-banning order, commonly arrested for shoplifting, or some known driving offence (getting into a car when the cop knows they are banned, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
" Literally 100% of the people stopped this year "
Literally. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
That's known as the "ledow shuffle".
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like more of a case of the authorities not wanting to lose face, so the claim success even in the case of failure.
Catching criminals is really beside the point. Does it lower crime? If they news came out, and "criminals" were still turning up to the concerts, then maybe it goes to show that some people don't think of themselves as criminals, and the authorities have redefined criminals to be anyone caught by their system.
Not only this, but... (Score:1)
Most people out shopping for Xmas are unlikely to be Muslims.
Way to fail, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
"Arrest is detaining you until the situation is clear"
Maybe it's different in the UK, but arrest != detain in the US...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc... [nolo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When the GCHQ and UK mil get interested then its full "van" time. A person is watched in shifts and all their data is collected on.
Then the SAS has the right to move in.
The police are now very political and have to do what they are "told" by political leaders. Political correctness and virtue signalling has reduced the ability to police.
The wider UK police command structure is now very political aware and is held back from policing and getting results.
Policing is now about allowing poli
Lower crime rates than US cities (Score:1)
This is Why UK cities have lower crime rates. The police there are far more efficient.
Re: Lower crime rates than US cities (Score:2)
British police DO seem to try a lot harder than American police to de-escalate situations & resolve them without bloodshed, and take immense pride in their ability to do it.
American police see movies with lines like, "The terrorist has a hostage. What do you do? (bam!) Shoot the hostage to disorient the terrorist." and think, "Fuck YEAH!"
Re: (Score:2)
UK police don't typically worry if the person they just pulled over is packing a weapon. It's an entirely different confrontation.
Re: Lower crime rates than US cities (Score:2)
Guns aren't quite as pervasive, but it's not like the UK is some gun-free idyllic paradise. British *criminals* (esp. organized crime) have been pretty well armed since the 70s & 80s. It's more like, you'd never see British police responding to a suicidal person by shooting them dead for failing to comply immediately (or attacking them with a butter knife). British police are more patient... they'll secure the perimeter & go into 'siege' mode for a few days if necessary, because they know the person
Santa Claus Is Coming to Town (Score:2)
Although that strategy could explain the reported 100% FAILURE rate [theregister.co.uk] that the system has produced.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the ease with which people dressed in red suits that hide body shape (and gender) and with large amounts of white facial hair, can move about unnoticed at this time of year, it probably isn't the best time to test this technology out.
But that's Santa - you can trust Santa. It's the other guys you have to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
you can trust Santa.
Obviously your city hasn't hosted the locust plague more commonly known as SantaCON [wikipedia.org]. Pretty much the worst parts of the Bible with the addition of 100s of drunken Santas barfing all over everyone.
Re: Santa Claus Is Coming to Town (Score:2)
Although that strategy could explain the reported 100% FAILURE rate that the system has produced.
lol. It flagged a total of 5 people, you ignorant jackass.
98% Failure Rate (Score:1)
1984 and George Orwell were from the UK (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So why does it supper rise air neon that their sow heavily minotaur?
Re: (Score:2)
Once you accept the premise of a monarch, all other bets about self-ownership are off.
Re: (Score:1)
All bets are off. You don't own any part of yourself, especially after it becomes detached. Can you have your arm stuffed and mounted on the wall after it's been amputated? You are medical waste. Don't take that personally. The majority is okay with this. Just, you know, "decline to be scanned" [nocookie.net]
declining to be scanned (Score:1)
And this is possible how exactly?
By staying inside your home I guess...
Re: (Score:2)
And this is possible how exactly?
By staying inside your home I guess...
Walk around in a Guy Fawkes mask?
Re: (Score:1)
Walk around in a Guy Fawkes mask?
Yes, maybe, but for more formal occasions, I would suggest something more subtle [nocookie.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Walk around in a Guy Fawkes mask?
Yes, maybe, but for more formal occasions, I would suggest something more subtle [nocookie.net]
Only if it comes with a cigar.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, that's sold separately [thelongashcigars.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I decline to be scanned, using a can of spray paint - at the camera.
You promised not to view me as suspicious. So back off!
BTW, I recommend Molotow Premium. Good coverage, dries in cold weather.
Re: (Score:2)
The person would then expect to have to show their ticket and accept a bag search. Now with facial recognition.
Such a location has the always had the right to not grant people entry.
People just don't get to enter some private/property as criminals.
Re: (Score:1)
Public/private is irrelevant. My point is when you step outside, you are not *declining to be scanned*. Cameras are everywhere.
And you can save your breath with that "private property" nonsense. It's a tiresome cliche that has no meaning here. When the owners act as an agent of the government we should put them under the same legal restraints.
Re: (Score:2)
Powerful laws exist to stop criminals on the way to a crime and after they have done a crime.
Tools of a crime found on person, getting ready to be part of crime.
CCTV was used as part of the "ring of steel" going back to the 1990's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] so any "legal restraints" went away a long time ago in the UK.
Now its just all about adding more images to a database to create a whilelist of mil, p
Re: (Score:2)
Then add all the past criminal people who have been convicted. Thats more "accuracy" AC.
The citizens left out of the data sets are people in the private sector with no educational, work, mil/police, transport ID.
Thats the whitelist of approved people and a set of people who
Of course they would (Score:3)
1984 (Score:2)
" and the Met says anyone declining to be scanned "will not be viewed as suspicious"
So, anyone in a burka will be given a cavity search?