UK: Police ticket man who tried to avoid facial recognition cameras.

Big Brother Britain: Extraordinary moment police FINE pedestrian £90 for disorderly behaviour after he tries to cover his face from facial recognition camera on the streets of London.

Camera cross-checked photos of faces of passers-by against wanted database
One man covered face before officers stopped him and took his picture anyway
He was fined £90 at scene in Romford by police who arrested three other people
Police say they know of human rights concerns but want to make London safer
Civil liberties groups insists it is a 'breach of privacy and freedom of assembly'
New technlogy incorrectly identified people in 96% of matches from 2016 to 18

Theres no end to government overstepping its authority.

We have to put a stop to it before it begins. Its very difficult to regain rights once government has taken them away.

Take a look at what we've allowed to occur on our soil where we supposedly pride ourselves as being "free".

Naked body scanners at the airports.

National ID cards.

45,000 SWAT raids every year.

Police checkpoints: for DUI and other general reasons.

Firearms registrations.

"Stop and frisk".

You cant sell lemonade.

You cant so much as trim a tree on your own property.

Or let your grass grow.

You cant grow food or collect rainwater.

All of our electronic communications are being recorded and monitored all of the time.

And on and on...

My goodness, how the mighty have fallen...

Well, I don't exactly like it but I don't see this being an easy thing to stop. They will argue that there's no expectation of privacy in public. Which is an established and entrenched idea.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Theres no end to government overstepping its authority.

If they cannot be controlled, what use do they serve?
People crave to be ruled, as long as it doesn't interfere with their own life.

a reply to: gladtobehere

But to be fair London feels surprisingly safe, really well organized and all that while being overrun by tourists. It's not because of nothing the rich want to live there.
And as lady who can come in the situation of wandering the streets at night alone I more often than not hope the cameras are on.
And the police I saw was friendly and helpful.
Have you ever been there?

a reply to: BrianFlanders

You use to be able to cover your face if you wanted to in public. Now the police can knock you down and put a camera in your face for doing so.

That's quite different than not having an expectation of privacy in public

a reply to: gladtobehere

All he needed is put on a burka and no one would dare take his picture to not offend their protected and entitled population...

a reply to: gladtobehere

Whoa brave coppers eh?

I mean he coulda been packing a spoon or perhaps a ladle of some sorts!

originally posted by: ATSAlex
a reply to: gladtobehere

All he needed is put on a burka and no one would dare take his picture to not offend their protected and entitled population...

Now that would be a fun protest move to watch.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: BrianFlanders

You use to be able to cover your face if you wanted to in public. Now the police can knock you down and put a camera in your face for doing so.

That's quite different than not having an expectation of privacy in public

Well, I guess that remains to be seen.

a reply to: gladtobehere
I did a "quote" on your post. to isolate the "tree" link. I was going to comment that the relevant page was currently unavailable, but it had to be a special case because I trim my trees all the time. Then I noticed something interesting.
At least half your stories are coming from America (the tree story is given by the LA Times). Since you are making this thread a big issue about controlled life in Britain, shouldn't you be focussing more on British examples? Or couldn't you find them?

a reply to: gladtobehere

And if you cover your face for religious reasons?. Get the same treatment ?. Im guessing not

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gladtobehere


Have you ever been there?

We both know the answer to that question, if we didn't this thread would not exist.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, I don't exactly like it but I don't see this being an easy thing to stop. They will argue that there's no expectation of privacy in public. Which is an established and entrenched idea.

Hmm, I wonder how many burqa clad women they fine...

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, I don't exactly like it but I don't see this being an easy thing to stop. They will argue that there's no expectation of privacy in public. Which is an established and entrenched idea.

Hmm, I wonder how many burqa clad women they fine...

Probably less than the ones in your head.

I’ve most certainly been there. And I must say, Tokyo feels a lot safer at night than London.
I wonder why that is.

Now covering your face is a crime? Well, if you’re a white male it is anyway.

Spoons, knives, social media posts and facial coverings. All very dangerous stuff.
I’m glad the government is tackling the big issues.

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, I don't exactly like it but I don't see this being an easy thing to stop. They will argue that there's no expectation of privacy in public. Which is an established and entrenched idea.

Hmm, I wonder how many burqa clad women they fine...

Less than the ones in your head?? That’s actually true. The number of ‘burqa clad women’ they will fine is : zero.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, I don't exactly like it but I don't see this being an easy thing to stop. They will argue that there's no expectation of privacy in public. Which is an established and entrenched idea.

Hmm, I wonder how many burqa clad women they fine...

Less than the ones in your head?? That’s actually true. The number of ‘burqa clad women’ they will fine is : zero.

Should they be fined?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, I don't exactly like it but I don't see this being an easy thing to stop. They will argue that there's no expectation of privacy in public. Which is an established and entrenched idea.

Hmm, I wonder how many burqa clad women they fine...

Less than the ones in your head?? That’s actually true. The number of ‘burqa clad women’ they will fine is : zero.

Should they be fined?

Should the man?

Neither should be fined.
Goose and gander is a good way to live. If anybody can ‘choose’ to follow a religion and cover their face because of it, then I can wear a full balaclava around in public all day.

I have no problem with anything people wear. Their body their choice. But one can’t have an excuse and the other not.

Many banks and service stations in the entire western world have ‘no helmets’ signs at the entry.

Strange to believe that a law should be applied only to some.
Let people hide their face. Who cares?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Although,

Maybe not fined but the man should definitely be questioned if he was seen directly by a cop.
Maybe just asked his name and run a quick search and let him be on his way.

That’s actually happened to me before and I did think at the time it was wise of the cop.
I was pulled over and I had no idea why, he said that as our cars passed each other it looked like I put my hand up to cover my face and he just thought he’d better check I wasn’t wanted for anything.
Something like ‘actively hiding from police’ type suspicion or something.
He just told me what he was doing, read my licence and sent me on my way.
I though it was a good idea.

But a fine? Nope.

Burqa clad woman should be left alone. Its not like she’s an anomaly or anything, very common sight. Doesn’t raise suspicion.

‘Suspicious people’ are the people we should be suspicious of. But we shouldn’t be getting fined for being suspicious.

a reply to: gladtobehere

From the personal perspective of the guy I believe he had the right to not have to expose himself to what amount's to an invasion of privacy and a collecting of his facial data onto a database without his consent.

From the police perspective I believe that they too have a point, they have stop and search and anti terror powers and to them this is an extension of that BUT they have overstepped there mark and I suspect this guy has a very viable legal case should he choose to make it, in the private sector we were only allowed to keep footage that contained people's faces for a fixed period of time and then had to destroy that footage but for a police data base this footage may stay on there for years or even decades to come without the person's consent and of course you do own the copyright to your own face so that is also potentially another kind of intrusion.

I am of mixed mind over this, the police have to stay ahead of terrorism and use the tool's they can get there hands' on to fight crime BUT this IS an intrusion of privacy and also a very anti freedom approach to policing that need's to be looked at far more closely by those whom do NOT have a vested interest either way.

If the guy does not have a criminal record and had nothing to hid but chose to not disclose his face then the police REALLY had absolutely no ethical or legal right to fine him especially if he did not resist a stop and search and in this case this amount's to the police going down the old Gestapo route of "Papers Please" were if you did not have your papers you could be arrested and taken back to the old gestapo head quarters, the difference this is more modern and slightly less inconvenient but just because it automates the process does not make it any more ethical or morally right to do to the general public without there express consent.

On balance I feel a court such as the Court of Human right's would almost absolutely definitely side with the guy against the police on this case and so too would most MP's in the house of common's - this actually needs' to be referred to the IPCC and if necessary also to European court's of Justice.

I don't buy the old argument if the guy had nothing to hide, this is about personal data held by people over whom he had no control and he had the right to not disclose his face - though given terrorist offences maybe in this case security over rules personal choice - that is were the argument lies though if we did not have those terrorist activity's then really the police have no business using this technology at all and are merely creating there own replacement as future government's may choose to cut police numbers even more drastically replacing them with automated all the time surveillance system's in a step ever closer to an Orwellian future.

Lastly it is not only the DATA but worries over what future government's and agency's as well as anyone else that may somehow get there hand's on it may do with it that is the real worry.