Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Still Waters

UK police use of facial recognition unlawful

Recommended Posts

 
OverSword
Quote

Among the concerns expressed by campaigners were that the technology particularly struggled to accurately identify people who weren't white and male.

:lol:  

But yes, I do feel that randomly scanning a public crowd as if fishing in a pond hoping to catch a fish is wrong.  It just doesn't seem right.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HandsomeGorilla
Posted (edited)

Facial recognition is cool and all, but needs a lot of work. My cousin and his daughter can unlock each other's iPhone, for instance lol. 

No guessing who that kid's dad is. She looked exactly like him on the ultrasound! 

Edited by HandsomeGorilla
  • Like 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

but witnesses make mistakes too, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The police and intelligence services have an easy workaround for troublesome statutes.  It's called the 5 Eyes program.  The law may say that the British PoPo can't use it but that doesn't stop them asking CIA or FBI to do it for them and "share".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill

Facial recognition technology is improving. Both the Chinese and the Israelis are developing software to identify people who are wearing masks:

“Israeli firm raises $5 million for tech to recognize mask-covered faces“

“Israel’s Corsight AI, which has developed technology to recognize faces concealed by masks, goggles and plastic shields, raised $5 million from Awz Ventures, a Canadian fund focused on intelligence and security technologies. Corsight said it offers a facial recognition system able to process information captured on video cameras and can address difficulties resulting from the outbreak, where a large portion of the population is moving about with faces partially covered.“

“In March, China’s Hanwang Technology Ltd said it has come up with technology that can recognize people when they are wearing masks, as many are today because of the coronavirus.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-facial-recognition/israeli-firm-raises-5-million-for-tech-to-recognize-mask-covered-faces-idUSKCN22809S

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
11 hours ago, and then said:

The police and intelligence services have an easy workaround for troublesome statutes.  It's called the 5 Eyes program.  The law may say that the British PoPo can't use it but that doesn't stop them asking CIA or FBI to do it for them and "share".

Actually it does. UK authorities can't ask a partner to do something that would be illegal under UK law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961

However you look at this it is, another, breach of civil liberties. Along with internet activity monitoring and mobile phone interception. 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ip-bill-law-details-passed

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/184597-stingray-the-fake-cell-phone-tower-cops-and-providers-use-to-track-your-every-move

This tech is way more invasive than can be justified for catching 'terrorists'.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
43 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

However you look at this it is, another, breach of civil liberties. Along with internet activity monitoring and mobile phone interception. 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ip-bill-law-details-passed

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/184597-stingray-the-fake-cell-phone-tower-cops-and-providers-use-to-track-your-every-move

This tech is way more invasive than can be justified for catching 'terrorists'.  

 

Given that a warrant is required for everything mentioned in your first link, what exactly is it you object to in the IP Act?

The second link is about the US. What is the relevance to the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
1 minute ago, Setton said:

Given that a warrant is required for everything mentioned in your first link, what exactly is it you object to in the IP Act?

The second link is about the US. What is the relevance to the UK?

How do we know a warrant has been properly issued ? The UK has used mobile phone monitoring tech for a few years.

Mass snooping fake mobile towers 'uncovered in UK' 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33076527

 

Then there is personal DNA storage. 

https://justice.org.uk/dna-retention-police/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

How do we know a warrant has been properly issued ? 

Because if it wasn't, they wouldn't be able to do it.

The IPC checks that services are processing warrants correctly and they have to be signed off at the appropriate level. Part of the IPA.

So, for the second time, which specific part do you object to?

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
1 hour ago, Setton said:

So, for the second time, which specific part do you object to?

Basically anything that treats the general public as guilty until proven innocent, I do not expect to be snooped on in my daily life when I have behaved in a reasonable manner. But I may be a bit old fashioned. ;) 

And its not just me. 

"Speaking after the ruling, Liberty’s director, Martha Spurrier, said: “Police and security agencies need tools to tackle serious crime in the digital age, but creating the most intrusive surveillance regime of any democracy in the world is unlawful, unnecessary and ineffective.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/27/snoopers-charter-investigatory-powers-act-rewrite-high-court-rules

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Setton
Just now, L.A.T.1961 said:

Basically anything that treats the general public as guilty until proven innocent, I do not expect to be snooped on in my daily life when I have behaved in a reasonable manner. But I may be a bit old fashioned. ;) 

Such as?

Which part of the IP Act gives anyone the power to 'snoop on your life when you've behaved in a reasonable manner'?

Or is that just what your media sources have told you to think of it?

Quote

And its not just me. 

"Speaking after the ruling, Liberty’s director, Martha Spurrier, said: “Police and security agencies need tools to tackle serious crime in the digital age, but creating the most intrusive surveillance regime of any democracy in the world is unlawful, unnecessary and ineffective.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/27/snoopers-charter-investigatory-powers-act-rewrite-high-court-rules

This is the same liberty that are currently campaigning to repeal the coronavirus act, stopping police from enforcing the laws put their to save thousands of lives.

Thanks but when I need their opinion...

 

I will never need their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Such as?

Which part of the IP Act gives anyone the power to 'snoop on your life when you've behaved in a reasonable manner'?

Or is that just what your media sources have told you to think of it?

This is the same liberty that are currently campaigning to repeal the coronavirus act, stopping police from enforcing the laws put their to save thousands of lives.

Thanks but when I need their opinion...

 

I will never need their opinion.

Liberty took their case to court and won, their opinion persuaded the Judges, or do you think legal rulings are without merit..

Their other activities will swim or sink on there merit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
7 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Liberty took their case to court and won, their opinion persuaded the Judges, or do you think legal rulings are without merit..

Their other activities will swim or sink on there merit. 

Which resulted in the IP Act being amended.

So, for the fourth time:

Which part of the IP Act gives anyone the power to 'snoop on your life when you've behaved in a reasonable manner'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 hours ago, Setton said:

Given that a warrant is required for everything mentioned in your first link,

The same is true here in the U.S. but the Five Eyes agreement is being used to break that law by getting outsiders to do the spying.  The same is happening there, IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 minutes ago, and then said:

The same is true here in the U.S. but the Five Eyes agreement is being used to break that law by getting outsiders to do the spying.  The same is happening there, IMO.  

No it isn't. As I've already told you, it's illegal for UK government entities to request partners to conduct actions that would be illegal under UK law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
6 hours ago, Setton said:

Which resulted in the IP Act being amended.

So, for the fourth time:

Which part of the IP Act gives anyone the power to 'snoop on your life when you've behaved in a reasonable manner'?

I have provided links for DNA retention, public mobile phone interception and internet snooping. If Liberty had not taken Government to court then the previous flawed version of the law would still be in place. This, I assume, you would be happy with ?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I have provided links for DNA retention, public mobile phone interception and internet snooping. If Liberty had not taken Government to court then the previous flawed version of the law would still be in place. This, I assume, you would be happy with ?   

Honestly? Yes. Because I have confidence in our security services. 

However, apparently enough people don't so the law is watered down.

For the fifth time, what specific elements fo you have an issue with? Those you name above are either not part of the IP Act or require a warrant. Why do you object if they require a warrant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
3 minutes ago, Setton said:

Honestly? Yes. Because I have confidence in our security services. 

However, apparently enough people don't so the law is watered down.

For the fifth time, what specific elements fo you have an issue with? Those you name above are either not part of the IP Act or require a warrant. Why do you object if they require a warrant?

We are entirely dependent on the Law to be properly managed but there is still a risk that things go wrong. The question is do we accept the risk because the law is needed or can we do without it and eliminate the risk.

Mass data trawling can by definition include anybody, despite not being the target, including those of a more dubious nature. What if our details are mixed up and an otherwise innocent citizen becomes the object of police attention and a warrant? We are not told of the new police interest, there is no way of defending ourselves, yet it could result in a front door being knocked down at six in the morning. 

There are endless stories of data loss or theft, if your data is not collected and stored it cannot be misused but the more fundamental issue is that a UK government in a country that has previously fought for its freedom can think it reasonable to put everybody under observation. 

I find this undesirable and intrusive. 

https://iaingould.co.uk/case-reports/claim-against-police-after-armed-raid/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
50 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

We are entirely dependent on the Law to be properly managed but there is still a risk that things go wrong. The question is do we accept the risk because the law is needed or can we do without it and eliminate the risk.

Mass data trawling can by definition include anybody, despite not being the target, including those of a more dubious nature. What if our details are mixed up and an otherwise innocent citizen becomes the object of police attention and a warrant? We are not told of the new police interest, there is no way of defending ourselves, yet it could result in a front door being knocked down at six in the morning. 

There are endless stories of data loss or theft, if your data is not collected and stored it cannot be misused but the more fundamental issue is that a UK government in a country that has previously fought for its freedom can think it reasonable to put everybody under observation. 

I find this undesirable and intrusive. 

https://iaingould.co.uk/case-reports/claim-against-police-after-armed-raid/

Where in the IP Act does the government have the right to put everybody under observation?

Also, I think if the security services leak the data they hold there's bigger issues than your personal details getting out. 

If anyone wants your personal details, they can almost certainly already find them. The only difference is the security services actually need a warrant. Private companies can do it with no oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute

If they can find a way to spy on you, they'll do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.