Facial Recognition - can of worms

I suppose the issue is do you trust those in power - the police, the government - to use this technology in an appropriate, fair, lawful and reasonable manner. And of course we should absolutely not trust them to do that.

It just feels like another one of those things where because the technology has been invented, people think they have to use it. But it feels like nobody has actually considered some of the longer-term implications. Like so many of us just handing over all our personal data without even thinking about it, until it was too late. In my opinion.
 
It's one of those where the use sounds legitimate but you can foresee it turning into a minority report type pre-crime situation where people are getting accused of things before they have happened and refused entry to places based on their profiles. It depends who is in control. If it is government then the people they deem to be "protesters and activists" will be anyone that disagrees with them politically.
 
Before you know it, this will be used everywhere and we could see it being used at football matches.

We've already got CCTV and this is taking it a few steps further. The argument is, if you have nothing to hide then you are OK but as Nano says, it could be used to prevent protestors and activists.

In the right hands it could be a good thing but do we really trust those who have the power to use and abuse it??
 
Facial recognition has been used in shops, at football matches and at border control since 2001.

East ham Council used it first to track football hooligans against a database. Harrods used it first to track shoplifters and the us government used it on the Mexico border.

It's not new.
 
Its on the same level as removing encryption from Whatsapp to protect children. Its a totally disingenuous comment designed to appeal to parents emotions, but has no basis in reality and in fact would be used against normal citizens rather than criminals.
 
I don't mind it, it may infringe on a few incorrectly (which would later get corrected I assume), but it should catch more criminals and prevent more crimes, overall I think it's well worth it. The standard of it probably goes up exponentially also.

I don't mind in the slightest being watched everywhere I go, they can log it and keep a 10-year report if they like, and I wouldn't be surprised if they already did.

People won't be locked up in advance for crimes they've not committed, the law would never allow this, and for it to be passed as a law the public and MP's would have to propose, vote and allow it, it's not going to happen.

Generally, people who commit crimes are more likely to commit the same crimes or other crimes again, anything to help that is a good thing I think, especially when we have fewer police.

Any private premises has a right to deny anyone they wish, and if they want to deny known offenders to them, then they should be allowed to do this and be able to use all the tools available.

I doubt private places will be given direct access to national crime databases, the data protection laws and basic rights wouldn't allow that I expect, but if companies want to store faces and ban faces from entering their premises then fair enough I think.

I think football clubs have nationwide databases, for hooligans etc, but by entering the premises you're effectively allowing yourself to be entered onto the databases.

As for protests, these are fine when they're not getting in people's way, they can stand and shout at the sides. But the protestors don't do themselves any favours when they prevent people from going about their daily lives, hampering emergency services etc, or causing damage to property which is not theirs.
 
Andy_W said:
I don't mind it, it may infringe on a few incorrectly (which would later get corrected I assume), but it should catch more criminals and prevent more crimes, overall I think it's well worth it. The standard of it probably goes up exponentially also.

I don't mind in the slightest being watched everywhere I go, they can log it and keep a 10-year report if they like, and I wouldn't be surprised if they already did.

People won't be locked up in advance for crimes they've not committed, the law would never allow this, and for it to be passed as a law the public and MP's would have to propose, vote and allow it, it's not going to happen.

Generally, people who commit crimes are more likely to commit the same crimes or other crimes again, anything to help that is a good thing I think, especially when we have fewer police.

Any private premises has a right to deny anyone they wish, and if they want to deny known offenders to them, then they should be allowed to do this and be able to use all the tools available.

I doubt private places will be given direct access to national crime databases, the data protection laws and basic rights wouldn't allow that I expect, but if companies want to store faces and ban faces from entering their premises then fair enough I think.

I think football clubs have nationwide databases, for hooligans etc, but by entering the premises you're effectively allowing yourself to be entered onto the databases.

As for protests, these are fine when they're not getting in people's way, they can stand and shout at the sides. But the protestors don't do themselves any favours when they prevent people from going about their daily lives, hampering emergency services etc, or causing damage to property which is not theirs.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right but there are an awful lot of suppositions, I think, I doubts etc contained within your post Andy and we can never tell who is going to be in power in 10 or 20 years and how they might well maliciously use technology that was created with the best of intentions.

I am firmly against the whole 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about' shtick when it comes to civil liberties.
 
Personally speaking, I have nothing to hide (well as of yet that is), so felt unbothered by it initially if it is used to keep us safe. However, the more I think about it, the more thoughtless and possibly dark and dangerous it could become………….

. How accurate is the technology?
. What is done with the recordings?
. How does this affect people who have had surgery, disfigurement or unforced appearance change such as hair changes? Some people may struggle wanting to be showing appearance for physical, emotional reasons etc
. How easy would it be to take photo’s or recordings of folk on phones, cameras etc and use images to commit online crime or access buildings/ events etc?
. How easy is it to produce facial masks and disguises of other real everyday people like the products they use in the movies? Can 3D printers do this already? CGI?

I have no idea on any of the above and maybe have wandered down a cul-de-sac, but given advances in technology, i guess some of the similar concerns might even apply to voice recognition. Criminals seem to be one step ahead with technology advances and aiding criminality. Wherever technology advances there will always be ways to abuse it i guess and how does that be overcome as we know nothing is 100% safe where humans are involved and robotic advances are somewhat scary too 😬
 
As long as its properly legislated I support it.

If its targeting specific people, such as individuals who are suspected of causing disorder at football matches or protests, it would need legal authority before its use.

The use of biometrics are a good thing for society on balance, as long as they are used proportionately and lawfully.

It won't be without its issues though and may take a little time to iron them out.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
As long as its properly legislated I support it.

If its targeting specific people, such as individuals who are suspected of causing disorder at football matches or protests, it would need legal authority before its use.

The use of biometrics are a good thing for society on balance, as long as they are used proportionately and lawfully.
Click to expand...
For football it doesn't need authority. East ham Council used is own database of known trouble makers. Other clubs could do the same.

It's private property and entry can be refused for any reason.

The issue comes when the technology is used beyond the scope of recognition and moves into assumption of uncommitted acts that are actioned on in a public space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top