To think the Police attitude to this is outrageous

[badlydrawnperson]

The Police are "trialling" facial recognition snooping. A man who decided he didn't want to participate in their trial was fined £90 for a "public order offence".

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000501m/click-short-edition-facial-recognition

Absolutely outrageous. There's a (good) reason San Francisco has just banned this technology.

The officers were NOT out of order. They were just doing the job they had been asked to by their superiors. They do not deserve to be treated aggressively and sworn at. Just the same as in any other job.

Do we actually know that their orders explicitly included intercepting anyone that chose not to be imaged and demanding said person produce ID and submit to being photographed? Add to that, would such orders if they existed have been lawful? I understand that the police have a duty to challenge/disregard any order they believe to be unlawful so the Nuremberg Defense doesn't necessarily cut it.

I did find it mildly ironic that the man in question made such a fuss about being imaged by the police but was more than happy to stand in front of TV cameras for a good few minutes.

YANBU. Studies have shown how inaccurate these scanners can be on non-white faces - if you’re a white man, they can identify you 99% of the time, but if you’re a darker skinned woman it falls to 65%...

@DontTread People like you will turn this country into a police state Oh please. My third line in my first posting clearly says I share the OP's concern about the introduction of this technology.

I've done a search in terms of how the Met Police are using the technology and what laws allow them to do this. If anyone wants to have a read:

www.met.police.uk/live-facial-recognition-trial/

@shatners - “sharing concerns” isn’t enough.

That clearly says that actively avoiding being scanned is not obstruction or an offence.

So that's clearly not actually how they are implementing it in reality, is it?

That short clip is the scariest thing I’ve ever watched.

They are already eroding our freedom of speech.

Now they are eroding our freedom of movement.

Unless you know you’ve been papped, you don’t know you’re on the database and therefore are unable to request its removal.

The tech will record your movements over a timeline. Our anonymity is gone.

Big brother is watching you.

Off to San Fran

YANBU. Studies have shown how inaccurate these scanners can be on non-white faces - if you’re a white man, they can identify you 99% of the time, but if you’re a darker skinned woman it falls to 65%...

Surely wider public trials can only help to improve accuracy. Besides, so what? This system will only be one part of a much wider process with various opportunities to compensate for initial inaccuracies. It's not like it's automatically dispatching Robocop to neutralize (wrongly) identified suspects.

It sounds like a very valuable system and one that could bring significant benefits if used appropriately. Of course, the danger is that systems often get brought in with promises about limits and restrictions on usage that very quickly get forgotten. If memory serves, when proposals to equip the police with tazers were first debated, we were assured they would only be used as a non-lethal option in situations where firearms might be justified and that only a very few specialist officers would be issued with them. It didn't pan out like that did it?

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police could not immediately comment on the incident, but said officers were instructed to “use their judgement” on whether to stop people who avoid cameras.

@KooMoo Our anonymity went years ago when CCTV became commonplace in our streets and on our roads. Long time ago. But that's the thing, isn't it - none of us want to feel spied on, but when we ourselves are a victim of crime but CCTV catches he culprit, we're happy with the technology. Many people know have it in their own homes. The genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back in, I'm afraid.

@DontTread I agree. Unfortunately it hasn't been trialled in our county, so I can't complain about its use to my PCC or take it up with my chief constable in any specific way. I can write to my MP about it and I will do so now it's been brought to my attention. I assume everyone else on the thread will do the same. Will it make any difference? Probably not. But we should do it nonethleess.

if you’re a white man, they can identify you 99% of the time, but if you’re a darker skinned woman it falls to 65%...

That's not a problem with the technology, though, but with the data that has been used to train the technology. Programmed by white men using images of white men....

I don't know how the training for this particular model was done (or indeed what the accuracy of this particular model is - as the algorithms and data sets are constantly being improved). but I would imagine there is a feedback loop where as long as it is told it has made incorrect ids then it will gradually improve.

If people weren't doing "Imma not gonna be a rat" and actually contacted police when they recognise wanted criminals or know who did the crime police is asking for more info about, we wouldn't need this technology🤷‍♀️

I still find it hard to believe that NO ONE in the whole region knew a burglar whose clear pic was posted in newspapers and online numerous times. Or the wanted guy for numerous sexual assaults🤷‍♀️

@Inspector There have been threads on MN in the past where someone asked if they would report a member of their own family (usually their son or daughter) if they had committed a crime. The vast majority always say no, even for murder. But if the shoe was on the other foot and it was their son or daughter who'd been raped or murder, I don't think they'd be happy if it came out later that the perp's parents knew and had kept quiet, do you?

@Inspector - why should I lose MY civil liberties because OTHER PEOPLE don’t wanna snitch, or can’t hold down their shit. Get out.

YANBU. He was acting like someone who was annoyed but he wasn't threatening in any way. He shouldn't have been stopped just because he didn't want to be photographed. I think plenty of people would be annoyed by being forcibly photographed by the police when they haven't done anything to warrant any suspicion.

IMO typical behaviour of some of the Met police. Rude, arrogant bullies. Notice I said "some" and "the Met". Our local police are wonderful in general but I've heard very disturbing reports about the Met from London based friends.

The man should complain / sue the police. I don't think they have any grounds to surround him and detain him to take his picture.

I would also counter it was unreasonable to fine the man when he had reason to believe he was going to be assaulted.

We don't accept the just following orders when the thought police turn up on women's doorsteps to check their thinking. This case provides an example of why ordinary people will be hassled by this technology and the people they might want to track will cover their faces.

"when proposals to equip the police with tazers were first debated, we were assured they would only be used as a non-lethal option in situations where firearms might be justified and that only a very few specialist officers would be issued with them. It didn't pan out like that"

Google Kingsbury for an explanation of why tazers are more widely distributed....sorry for derailing the thread....

I suspect if he took it far enough he could have that fine rescinded.

It is not illegal to tell someone to 'piss off'.

Under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:
A person is guilty of an offence if he ... uses threatening words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour ... within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

If the police officer were likely to feel harrassed, alarmed or distressed by his use of 'piss off', then it is an offence.
They certainly weren't harrassed, and very unlikely they would have been alarmed or distressed either.

He, on the other hand, certainly was harrassed by the police officers, and I think their behaviour could reasonably be construed as threatening. If I were him I would be making a formal complaint.

@mrsbethel

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Was anyone else in the vicinity....

You and I will never know

Finally got my iPlayer to play that video..

Everyday, sometimes 3 times a day, on police stations across the land briefings are held. They go like this:-
:"Right everyone this is joe blogg, wanted for murder, be on the look out for joe." And so it goes detailing criminals and their crimes. So why not use a machine to assist? We already have CCTV and ANPR so why not use a machine to recognise known criminals?

As to the incident itself, well anyone who covers their face upon seeing a Facial Recognition van (it was well marked) screams criminal and although there is no law against it any cop worth his salt would want to know why. This was his opportunity to explain calmly and not start effing and jeffing on the high street.

I suspect there was both
"Would you help us with a trial Sir?"
"No, sorry"
"Ooh, Sir, go on Sir, Help us Sir"
"No sorry"
"Ooh sir, You would be helping the public"
"No sorry"
"Why don't you want to help, Sir"
"Sorry"

eventually in exasperation you get rude. The police band together and arrest you. "Suit you, Sir?"

As to the incident itself, well anyone who covers their face upon seeing a Facial Recognition van (it was well marked) screams criminal and although there is no law against it any cop worth his salt would want to know why. This was his opportunity to explain calmly and not start effing and jeffing on the high street. actually, no, I don’t have to explain why I don’t want my rights trod on

No one rights were harmed in the filming of that scene....but a calm explanation goes a looong way further than "piss off" in any given situation.

Did anyone else notice that two successful arrests of wanted people did take place?

no one rights were harmed in the filming of that scene....but a calm explanation goes a looong way further than "piss off" in any given situation. I’m sorry, but having you’re image taken without your consent for use in a police data base when you’ve committed no offence or being banged up on some bullshit “public order” charge when you refuse infringes quite a few rights, and I don’t care if it leads you to arresting every thug in London.