It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LABTECH767
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.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Breakthestreak
To be honest, your argument is so nuanced I cant argue either way.
The way this is headed is we all have to be exactly the same, is that really the world we want to live in..
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?
Yea, remember that thing we did when Britain tried pushing their bull# on us back then?
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Woodcarver
Aye right, we don't want guns, we understand the adverse effects and stupidity of allowing every wannabe Dirty Harry to carry a loaded firearm.
You try threatening those evil government officials/representatives with your gun a see how well that works out for you.
But please keep them to yourselves and away from children at least.