Crowd Scanner

[mistermack]

I see a few ways It could compromise liberty.
1. People's movements could be logged without their knowledge.
2. Such a system is very unlikely to be error-free, but is highly likely to be assumed correct in an identification. If the system happens to mark you as a terrorist based on no more than the estimation made from a digital image you will find your liberty infringed.
3. If people's movements are tracked en-masse and analysed for 'suspicious behaviour patterns' you might come under scrutiny simply because you walk near a suspect's house.

The problem here is less the technology, more users' likely attitude to it.

1) Yes it could, but that is done now, and quite right too. It's the only way to catch some criminals and terrorists. How do you catch them, without logging their movements?

2) Yes that's true. But that happens now. Jean Charles Menzes? , the Brazilian electrician, misrecognised by the London Met Police, was held down and shot about six times, because someone thought he was someone else. Maybe facial recognition could have saved his life? Just a thought. It can work both ways.

3) Innocent people coming under scrutiny isn't restricted to technology. It can happen now. Maybe the technology can also help lift that suspicion, as well as confirm it.

To me, if it improves decision making, it's good. If it doesn't, it won't last long.
.

[Seth]

Sunglasses. Just sayin'.

large, dark or mirrored sunglasses. I once interviewed a rep from "Facit," one of the facial recognition developers and was told that eye-related measurements are not only critical to an identification, but also for the software to "recognize" a face in the first place. It can see through lightly tinted eyeglasses and clear lenses, but not dark, oversized lenses that completely obscure the eye and eye socket.

The courts have ruled that you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in your facial features when in public, so it's not an intrusion to scan your face (as already happens in most major airports and some sports stadiums...and had for years.

The real issue is tracking of the individual. New technology allows the FR software to track the individual in real-time from camera to camera, so long as the systems are interconnected, as they are in the UK, where they can spot you in one place and quite literally automatically follow you everywhere you go that there's a camera, which will auto-reacquire you if you step into a shop and come out somewhere else.

Now THAT is an invasion of privacy if you're not engaged in a criminal act, or so I believe.

[Seth]

The second you enter the public space you lose any right to privacy, thats why its called the public space

Not "any" right. You have a right not to be searched without reasonable suspicion of something, for example.

You lose your "reasonable expectation of privacy" in your facial characteristics and your physical actions when you're in public. You don't lose your privacy rights, ever, it's just that in a public place, you don't have a right of privacy in your face or your actions to begin with.

And one of the excuses (and it's a legitimate one) for banning burquas is the public safety issue. Many cities bar the wearing of masks or other face coverings to reduce street crime...or they used to.

To me that's the best reason to ban the burqua, but then you also have to ban facemasks in the winter as well, which is why such laws are rarely enforced.

[Feck]

To me, if it improves decision making, it's good. If it doesn't, it won't last long.

won't last long ? what ARE you talking about ? do you see CCTV being removed in many places , do you hear of cops NOT using their new powers on 'crimes' that are not Terrorist related ? Give me one instance of a legal right being restored once lost ?

[MrJonno]

And one of the excuses (and it's a legitimate one) for banning burquas is the public safety issue. Many cities bar the wearing of masks or other face coverings to reduce street crime...or they used to.

That was the French justification (remember they didnt ban the burqa as such as that would be illegal under the European Human rights) , they banned the covering the face bar for entertainment or safety

[mistermack]

To me, if it improves decision making, it's good. If it doesn't, it won't last long.

won't last long ? what ARE you talking about ? do you see CCTV being removed in many places , do you hear of cops NOT using their new powers on 'crimes' that are not Terrorist related ? Give me one instance of a legal right being restored once lost ?

Fair enough, it's rare. They did have to take down cameras in Birmingham, after spending hundreds of thousands of pounds installing them, but that was because they were aimed at muslims.
I don't mind if they are catching criminals that aren't terrorists, though. They all want catching.
They abolished the death penalty, didn't they? The legal right to life was restored. That's quite a major one.

The acid test with cameras is the number of innocent people that have been wrongly arrested or convicted. There MAY be some, but I can't recall any. And there are certainly MANY guilty people who have been convicted, sometimes of the most horrendous crimes, with the help of the cameras. ( and that includes on-duty police officers ).
The police are certainly forced to behave more properly by the thought that they may be on camera.
The balance of good vs. bad seems to be hugely weighted in favour of more cameras, to me.
.

[Geoff]

To me, if it improves decision making, it's good. If it doesn't, it won't last long.

won't last long ? what ARE you talking about ? do you see CCTV being removed in many places , do you hear of cops NOT using their new powers on 'crimes' that are not Terrorist related ? Give me one instance of a legal right being restored once lost ?

Fair enough, it's rare. They did have to take down cameras in Birmingham, after spending hundreds of thousands of pounds installing them, but that was because they were aimed at muslims.
I don't mind if they are catching criminals that aren't terrorists, though. They all want catching.
They abolished the death penalty, didn't they? The legal right to life was restored. That's quite a major one.

The acid test with cameras is the number of innocent people that have been wrongly arrested or convicted. There MAY be some, but I can't recall any. And there are certainly MANY guilty people who have been convicted, sometimes of the most horrendous crimes, with the help of the cameras. ( and that includes on-duty police officers ).
The police are certainly forced to behave more properly by the thought that they may be on camera.
The balance of good vs. bad seems to be hugely weighted in favour of more cameras, to me.
.

Completely agree.