Chinese-style mass facial recognition scanning now in UK

[jandl100]

Who knew?
Not me.

I mean, OK, I expect the dastardly Chinese totalitarian state to get up to these things, but good ol' Blighty?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/05/welsh-police-wrongly-identify-thousands-as-potential-criminals

https://futurism.com/welsh-police-face-scanning-software-incorrect/

[walpurgis]

Next time you're hauled away in handcuffs for no apparent reason, you'll know why.

[struth]

yup, if you farted in a lift, 30 years ago, causing mass panic, there is a better than 90% chance someone else will get nicked for it:doh:

[jandl100]

OK, so they were 33 years late.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.cpcache.com%2Fproduct%2F5735898 24%2Fbig_brother_is_watching_you.jpg%3Fheight%3D40 0%26width%3D400%26qv%3D90%26AttributeValue%3DPoste r%26Size%3D32x21&f=1

[walpurgis]

I believe they've been using this at sea ports and airports for a while.

[jandl100]

So do we sleep easier in our beds knowing that the bad people are having a harder time of it?
Or do we spend restless nights waiting for the front door to burst open and a SWAT team come charging in cos you vaguely resemble some mass murderer?

[walpurgis]

It'll probably be used as an excuse to justify less policing.

[User211]

It isn't surprising as OpenCV (https://opencv.org/) and other libraries allow object tracking, ANPR, face detection and recognition to be incorporated into software applications with some degree of ease.

Given decent quality source files (mugshots) and video input, some algorithms are better than humans at face recognition. But that's the problem, the need for high quality input, and it all falls over when trying to recognise faces from small images with little detail i.e. crowd scenes.

A high quality camera getting close ups on a single file turnstile gate should do pretty well, though.

[Edward]

I'm deeply concerned about the civil liberties aspect of such technology and am concerned that various public bodies (and indeed private bodies) will increasingly use the 'security' aspect to keep rolling out such tech. And then once they start linking up the data that is collected with other datasets it becomes easier for all our movements being tracked - just so that they have it for possible investigations down the road. Already internet service providers (ISPs) have to collect and retain one years data of our online movements, it is easy to see how the increasing authoritarian impulse will dictate that all CCTV data will need to be retained. And then add facial recognition to CCTV and you have a truly Orwellian world.

Even now large shopping malls routinely collect data provided freely, but not knowingly, by all shoppers who have a smartphone. These are tracked using standard wifi and 4g tech and each phone is uniquely identified for footfall movements via the phone's unique MAC (Media Access Control) code. Join that data up with government and ISP data and we have even more reasons to be justifiably paranoid.

And I don't buy the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" line.

[User211]

BWV (Body Worn Video) is now in use by the Police, who upload it on a daily basis to a database. So be nice to Mr PC Copper.

[walpurgis]

BWV (Body Worn Video) is now in use by the Police, who upload it on a daily basis to a database.

They can't be uploading much. There are no police around here. Apart from the occasional car with blue lights and siren flying through, you simply don't see them and this is hardly a low crime area.

[User211]

Facebook are leaders in face recognition tech. Google if yee doubteth.

[struth]

until the people decide to take back whats theirs it will just get worse. most of this tech is totally un needed for 99.9% of time.
thing is if we had a fairer society and kept our beaks out of other countries business there would be no need for the 0.1% either

[walpurgis]

A beefy gamma burst from the sun would sort that. No computers!

[Primalsea]

At some point in my life I will probably get to the stage were I wont know who I am or where the hell am I. Something that can recognise me and let me know who I am and how I got where I am doesnt seem all bad...

[Macca]

Even if they did bust in and arrest you by mistake they could only hold you for 48 hours. Not the case in any EU country where they don't have English common law and you are guilty until proven innocent.

Thankfully we will now never have that in the UK.

[Macca]

until the people decide to take back whats theirs it will just get worse. most of this tech is totally un needed for 99.9% of time.
thing is if we had a fairer society and kept our beaks out of other countries business there would be no need for the 0.1% either

The 'If we don't bother them they won't bother us' theory? Disproved so many times by history it isn't really worth wasting the time arguing about it.

[struth]

The 'If we don't bother them they won't bother us' theory? Disproved so many times by history it isn't really worth wasting the time arguing about it.

no probs if it might threaten us, but mostly its done for money. thats pretty obvious

[Macca]

no probs if it might threaten us, but mostly its done for money. thats pretty obvious

Well, for the oil. Which we all use and get the benefit from. And which we can't do without if we want to carry on like we have been for the past 100 years. They don't bomb these people for the fun of it, or because they've got nothing else on that day, although it is surprising how many otherwise intelligent people seem to think that's why they do it.

[Minstrel SE]

Im one of the people that keep saying well if Ive nothing to hide why worry. However I might wake up one morning and find the accumulation of all this big brother technology has got too much. You know things that we let pass and Im suddenly in a dark version of the future.

One of those people who did nothing until council drones are hovering outside our windows :)

I saw on the news that they will sell data to the shops about footfall etc. I just dont want to get to the stage where Im tracked everywhere for marketing purposes. Its already happening on my computer and phone and some would say its already gone too far.

I dont worry about CCTV and my information is generally out there for junk mail so it doesnt bother me too much at the moment. I do however feel my privacy is being eroded away for dubious reasons

I see it all heading to Telescreens in the home. It might start out as monitoring for marketing but pretty soon I will be told to do my morning exercises and be a productive person for the government :(

[Primalsea]

Like anything this kind of collection and compiling of information could bring huge benefits. Finding missing loved ones, tracking criminal activity, only see adverts and articles you are genuinely interested in seeing. But this is how it is often sold in order to get acceptance and we have already seen how the data can be used for more insidious reasons.

[Macca]

and we have already seen how the data can be used for more insidious reasons.

Have you got some examples of this?

Don't get me wrong I am not in favour of some sort of big brother state but I'm struggling to reconcile what I perceive as the reality of data mining with the 'we're all doomed' narrative.

In short, I don't really see how the information they are able to collect about me can be used to compromise me.

Is it not the case that the people making the money out of the data mining are simply talking up its relevance for the benefit of their punters?

[Primalsea]

Have you got some examples of this?

Don't get me wrong I am not in favour of some sort of big brother state but I'm struggling to reconcile what I perceive as the reality of data mining with the 'we're all doomed' narrative.

In short, I don't really see how the information they are able to collect about me can be used to compromise me.

Is it not the case that the people making the money out of the data mining are simply talking up its relevance for the benefit of their punters?

Cambridge Analytical. The data was not specific but didn’t need to be as it was being used to guide opinions en-masse over time.

[Macca]

Cambridge Analytical. The data was not specific but didn’t need to be as it was being used to guide opinions en-masse over time.

Oh that. A lot of fuss about nothing IMO. Some Facebook users did not realise that they were the product. Big deal. I'm sure all that info about what they had for dinner and what's going on in their relationship with Gary or whoever is massively valuable in the right (wrong) hands.

And I'm deeply sceptical about the effect of mass media on opinion-forming. I think the only reason this idea has gained any traction is because the value of the data has been massively over-exaggerated by the people trying to sell it.

It's on a par with the sort of wishful thinking that says people only vote Conservative because they read the Daily Mail.

Does no-one understand anymore that the media and the politicians react to public opinion rather than form it?

[montesquieu]

I'm deeply concerned about the civil liberties aspect of such technology and am concerned that various public bodies (and indeed private bodies) will increasingly use the 'security' aspect to keep rolling out such tech. And then once they start linking up the data that is collected with other datasets it becomes easier for all our movements being tracked - just so that they have it for possible investigations down the road. Already internet service providers (ISPs) have to collect and retain one years data of our online movements, it is easy to see how the increasing authoritarian impulse will dictate that all CCTV data will need to be retained. And then add facial recognition to CCTV and you have a truly Orwellian world.

Even now large shopping malls routinely collect data provided freely, but not knowingly, by all shoppers who have a smartphone. These are tracked using standard wifi and 4g tech and each phone is uniquely identified for footfall movements via the phone's unique MAC (Media Access Control) code. Join that data up with government and ISP data and we have even more reasons to be justifiably paranoid.

And I don't buy the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" line.

Totally agree.

In China they are deploying this technology along with other big data driving initiatives such as the Citizen score - if you are are a criminal - or a criminal as far as the state is concerned which might include someone with opinions contrary to the CCP or even just campaigning against some policy issue - your score will be reduced, to the point where you won't be able to get credit, rent an apartment or even buy a train ticket (you need state ID to buy train tickets in China).

Great for tourists - Beijing has to be the safest place in the world for tourists, there are police, plain clothes or uniformed, on every street - but not so great if you don't go along with Chairman Xi's worldview.

[Gazjam]

Just a scenario.

Lets say Martin you are looking at stuff online that you shouldn't...serious stuff...its all being tracked and logged somewhere on a database.
Over time these Databases become more and more interlinked, the advertising databases have the largest datasets...so Governments think its a good resource on people?

Nefarious players in Government and elsewhere get access to this data, whether by deliberate act or (mostly the case) human error and this information is sold on to Health insurance Companies...security services...whatever.
Your refused credit, health insurance and are put on some watch-list your unaware of.

These things start slow...deliberately so.
Over time with constant exposure peoples shock gets less and less, people more and more apathetic to it.
Candy Crush anyone?

The new Normal sets in...and it's too late.



Have you got some examples of this?

Don't get me wrong I am not in favour of some sort of big brother state but I'm struggling to reconcile what I perceive as the reality of data mining with the 'we're all doomed' narrative.

In short, I don't really see how the information they are able to collect about me can be used to compromise me.

Is it not the case that the people making the money out of the data mining are simply talking up its relevance for the benefit of their punters?

[Macca]

Just a scenario.

Lets say Martin you are looking at stuff online that you shouldn't...serious stuff...its all being tracked and logged somewhere on a database.
Over time these Databases become more and more interlinked, the advertising databases have the largest datasets...so Governments think its a good resource on people?

Nefarious players in Government and elsewhere get access to this data, whether by deliberate act or (mostly the case) human error and this information is sold on to Health insurance Companies...security services...whatever.
Your refused credit, health insurance and are put on some watch-list your unaware of.

These things start slow...deliberately so.
Over time with constant exposure peoples shock gets less and less, people more and more apathetic to it.
Candy Crush anyone?

The new Normal sets in...and it's too late.

I follow that, but what is this serious on-line stuff I could be looking at? As in it is serious enough that the government would be concerned that I am looking at it but not so serious that it is already illegal for me to be doing so?

And what is our ideal outcome here? That no-ones' internet browsing is logged at all?

The issue really seems to hang on revenue. It's well known that on-line advertising is massively ineffective and no-one will pay proper money for it. At the same time people expect to view content for free. Paywalls don't work so something has to pay for that content and that solution is to sell profiling data.

You've only got to look at the adverts that target you to see how ineffective that is. Jaguar, for example, seem very keen to sell me one of their cars despite the fact that I couldn't in my wildest dreams afford one and don't have a license in any case.

Amazon, who I use a lot, have algorithms so hopeless that they regularly try to sell me things I have already bought from them quite recently.

Big brother states don't tend to last because they are hampered in their desire for total control by our two old friends and protectors; Laziness and Incompetence.

[Macca]

Oops - sorry Gaz I deleted your duplicate post and now you have deleted the other one.

EDIT: I've put it back now

[Barry]

Totally agree.

In China they are deploying this technology along with other big data driving initiatives such as the Citizen score - if you are are a criminal - or a criminal as far as the state is concerned which might include someone with opinions contrary to the CCP or even just campaigning against some policy issue - your score will be reduced, to the point where you won't be able to get credit, rent an apartment or even buy a train ticket (you need state ID to buy train tickets in China).

Great for tourists - Beijing has to be the safest place in the world for tourists, there are police, plain clothes or uniformed, on every street - but not so great if you don't go along with Chairman Xi's worldview.

Exactly - whilst I haven't been in China or Tibet for thirty years, then the plain clothes police and eves dropper/informers were everywhere to be seen, loitering on street corners and near cafés and bars. I'm sure it's ten time worse now.

In China, the individual is not important and is not to be trusted - the State is everything. It's been that way since the Qin period. The sad thing is the Han Chinese seem to be quite happy to be told what to think whilst enjoying their newly-gained prosperity.