Facial Recognition Cameras - Yet Another Reason Not To Go Back To UK

(Jane Williamson) #1

Did anyone see the Click programme on the BBC at lunchtime today?
It gave a frightening overview of how facial recognition cameras are being used by the police, clubs, stores and almost anyone else who thinks it is a good idea.
These networks are then sharing information.
I find it totally frightening and it makes me realise how lucky we are not to be spied on to the extent that they do in UK.

1 Like
(Sue Young) #2

And even the simplest Google search will show that these cameras are all over France as well. To combat terrorism to start with. Just because you haven’t seen a French TV programme about them-doesn’t mean they’re not being used-especially in large cities- just as they are in the UK.

(Warren Joiner) #3

Thank God, people aren’t on the internet, drive cars, have sat navs, have credit cards or cheques, store cards, or have mobile telephones. If not our daily / life movements would be tracked & easily traceable. Ouf!

(Robert Hodge) #4

These days I find that I hardly recognise the face in the mirror that I’m shaving each morning, so perhaps I should get one of these cameras ?

(Simon Armstrong) #5

Not entirely sure what the issue is here…:roll_eyes:

(Jane Williamson) #6

Only civil liberties.

(Peter Jackson) #7

Many would say that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

(Jane Williamson) #8

Many would, but I find that a rather naive point of view.
It is the slippery path.
Thank goodness I avoid cities and large towns.
I don’t have a smartphone either or in car satnav.

(Timothy Cole) #9

You think that’s bad Jane, try working for someone who installed cameras in his house here so he could check when we there, for how long and what we were doing.

Personally I don’t have a problem with it if it helps reduce crime or leads to the arrest of wanted criminals and as someone has already pointed out we’ve been tracked for years by countless organisations/businesses without complaint.

1 Like
(Peter Jackson) #10

‘only the paranoid survive’ - Andy Grove, ex founder and CEO of Intel.

Most surveillance / cameras are for the good of the majority, often used now as evidence in assault cases etc, traffic flow control on roads. Recognition systems aid check-in and passport free passage through airports … the applications are immense.

You will not want to go out at all in any country, it’s a shame you are so fearful of this technology and its use.

(Jeanette Leuers) #11

Trusting or fearing technology? I think about systems, and the people who design/ organise them, the individuals who use the equipment and for what purposes. Any kind of child-like faith in any of it looks iffy, to me. Hi tech doesn’t have built in morality of its own…
I like to pay attention to gut reaction, if it seems to be iffy, with or without assurances and guarantees, it probably is.
No, of course that’s not 100% reliable, but what is?

(Simon Armstrong) #12

Nothing to fear from technology - I’m alive because of it! :grin: I try to spend time thinking about things that matter.

1 Like
(Nellie Moss ) #13

I would rather my civil liberties be impinged than be blown up by a suicide bomber, see rioting on the football terrace or get property stolen

(Ben van Staveren) #14

The applications are indeed immense, however, from a security (IT, that is) standpoint the applications are positively mouth-watering if you’re up to no good. Unfortunately, most of the companies producing recognition systems have an absolute abyssal track record when it comes to securing this data. For example, those lovely x-ray full body scanners where the image was only visible to a person sitting in a room somewhere else? Yeah, that wasn’t the case; the images were stored, often for months, with access available to pretty much anyone. There was a pretty big kerfuffle about it a year or two ago when this came out.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Having faith in technology isn’t a bad thing but you have to question the motives (yes, I’m going there) of the people who design, implement, and use it. I’d argue a “trust, but verify” approach to things like this, although it’s incredibly hard for a private citizen to verify anything ye 'ole guv’ment is doing.

Abuse of technology matters :wink:

To pull out that Benjamin Franklin quote:

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There is a limit to how much safety you get from this surveillance society. A suicide bomber is still very much a loose untraceable cannon as can be witnessed by reading the last, oh, 3 months worth of papers. There have been suicide bombings and other attacks where someone “was on the radar” but nothing happened. Yet, the powers that be are collecting a rather mind-blowing amount of data on it’s citizenry. Even if we assume they have the best intentions at heart, it only takes one bad actor to ruin the works. Either inside, Joe Q. Random Hacker who wants to see if he can, or a friendly (or unfriendly) nation state.

It’s a fun little pickle .

(Simon Armstrong) #15

Some great points Ben but what if you just don’t care…

1 Like
(Ben van Staveren) #16

Well, then you don’t :smiley: Although I’d suggest you should, but then again I can’t tell anyone what to do so that’s kind of moot :slight_smile:

1 Like
(Paul Flinders) #17

Yeah, but a lot more killing happens when people have guns than when they don’t.

(Ben van Staveren) #18

Correct - but unbridled surveillance by government or private enterprises is just as dangerous. See the recent spats about Facebook and other companies collecting tons of data and profiling users. Or the recent advances in machine learning that are now able to generate pictures of people that actually do not exist, but you wouldn’t know since they’re indistinguishable from the real deal.

Things have gotten to a point where it is far too easy to obtain massive loads of information about just about everyone without oversight or proper procedures in place to protect the privacy of the people; and saying “yeah but privacy is dead” is not cutting it anymore, we all know that privacy isn’t as good as it used to be, but we can still have an expectation of privacy in our daily lives.

That, and in my opinion (and I will add that it’s a bit on the nutty side of the fruitcake) we’re getting too close to a 1984-ish situation, if we aren’t there already. And that’s dangerous.

(Paul Flinders) #19

Orwell’s great mistake in 1984 was assuming we needed to be opressed.

Turns out we happily opress ourselves and will welcome the means of opression into our lives with open arms as long as it brings with it a video of a kitten doing cute and amusing things.

(Anna Watson) #20

Frankly I don’t really care how many facts and data “they” collect about me. I imagine that there are hundreds of people who buy what I buy, visit the same websites I do, go where I go, etc etc etc, there are many profiles exactly like mine. Even if they link my name to my behaviour patterns I’m still next to anonymous, in that they don’t know me or care about me as an individual. I’m just one profile among millions. So in spite of the fact that “they” may have reams of data on this virtual profile that they may or may not associate with the name Anna, my address, my vehicle plate, date of birth etc etc, I don’t feel threatened or violated as I would if someone that actually knew me as a real person, collected just one piece of information about me that I didn’t want that particular individual to have. It’s the impersonal / anonymous aspect that makes the difference.