Thank you for that link, Tim.
Having read it, I can’t see any reasons for a law-abiding citizen who believes that it’s the police’s job to keep us all safe, to object to this.
As I understand it, it’s basically like ANPR cameras for people. Unless your car shouldn’t be on the road according to the DVLA dB, any data recorded by the camera is not used.
The fact is that individuals are only of any interest/significance to the authorities if they happen to be considered a risk to society in some way. I do wonder if that’s part of what people sometimes find hard to realise - that as a person they are just one of millions of anonymous individuals and the authorities have no interest in their private lives, they don’t want to know who they are, where they go and what they do. We are like ants scurrying around.
Nice analogy Anna, the concern about these cameras should be about their accuracy nothing more.
Thinking about it another way, you could say it’s basically no different from a policeman with a phenomenal photographic memory standing there surveying the crowd. His eyes will pass over most of the faces without them registering in his brain, and it’s only when he recognises a face that his brain will kick in. The technology in this case - as in many cases - is simply mirroring and enhancing the logical process of the human brain, but without the emotional and judgmental dimension. So in a sense, it’s way less intrusive than being surveyed by a human, whose brain might kick in involutarily if he sees an especially pretty face or a short skirt, or a face he knows personally, or a couple having an intimate moment, or something else that professionally he should ignore but being human it catches his attention. And I doubt anyone would say that a policeman looking at faces in a crowd is an intrusion on their privacy.
We need Poirot with his little grey cells.
It is the fact that this automatically goes into the police data base to make the match.
There are people on this database who have been wrongly arrested, people who have been photographed at legal protests etc. etc.
Well, but I imagine that the officer monitoring the system will have this information in front of him, so why would he decide to follow up on a person whose history doesn’t indicate that they pose any kind of threat in the current situation?
It’s no different from a policeman recognising with his own eyes an individual he has previously had dealings with. Just because he remembers stopping that person for a traffic offence, doesn’t mean he’s then going to harass him every time he sees him.
Somewhere else Jane won’t be moving to -
Too right.
I think that is taking it too far. Though know of a few private residential properties that have cameras in the entrance halls & on the landings.
The Law Society have undertaken a review of how algorithms are being used by the Police in many of their undertakings, without any legal overview.
They are objecting to the fact that these algorithms are based on old data and could easily contain bias.
Thank goodness there is a respected body which stands up for the public.
What a lot of people dont realise is the Facial recognition software is is installed and in use in most International airports and has been for years. will that stop us flying just because it is there - i thought so.
A lot of people don’t make any kind of judgement when they fly.
As long as it is cheap.
You can see the increase in tourism to Turkey because of the fall in the dinar.
There doesn’t seem any recognition of the fact that Turkey is close to a dictatorship.
Justice algorithms 'need urgent oversight' - Society | News | Law Gazette
Here is The Law Societys’ own press release about their report
The objection to these systems seems to be the same as those against identity cards - but, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
When we applied for our Cartes de Séjour, we were fingerprinted. Did we object? Of course not. We have nothing to hide so we have nothing to fear.
And we wanted our cards!
Anyone/thing that can recognise my facial features after a slepless night must be really hi -tech 
I am not against CCTV cameras in towns, and facial recognition at ports and airports. If it helps catch criminals then in fact I’m for it …
Thanks to this thread & @fabien post on insurance, which for certain companies means other things like accretitation, I’m seriously looking to link this technology to my intergrated systems BIM projects for my clients espescialy those with defense contracts. No recongition no entry!
I worked for Intel between 2000 and 2003. The data centre I worked in had swipe card access incorporated with pin (numbers appearing randomly on the display to stop pattern copying) and hand print. Just before i left they had another round of recording peoples faces, I believe with the intent of using facial recognition along with the card, pin and hand. The tech is out there for some companies who deem their security important.
I worked for <mumble> in the 1990s and visited sites where they had all of the above, plus extra features, and the security detail had weapons loaded with live ammo.
I was never quite sure whether to be impressed or scared witless.
@Ian_Horswell “We have nothing to hide so have nothing to fear”.
No doubt this is true of you and your family, Ian.
But are you 100% sure that you are happy to let anyone know everything about you?
Are you really willing to give away your right to keep your life, and your family’s life, out of the view of some bored faceless and anonymous jerk who wants to have a look at it, for whatever reason, or none?
Everyone wants some personal privacy, and privacy for their loved ones (AKA “something to hide”) from the prurient gaze. I know I do.
Peter, if anyone found my life in the slightest bit interesting, I’d feel sorry for them!