Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the Police attitude to this is outrageous

81 replies

badlydrawnperson · 16/05/2019 08:30

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.

OP posts:
Original poster
badlydrawnperson · 16/05/2019 13:41

As to the incident itself, well anyone who covers their face upon seeing a Facial Recognition van (it was well marked) screams criminal

No they don't.

OP posts:
Buster72 · 16/05/2019 13:45

Did we watch the same video? He explained himself that upon seeing a van marked "facial recognition " he covered his face. Cops asked why he did so , and as we all know there is no law against doing so he chose that moment to "eff&jeff" rather than be reasonable and explain it.
He was not banged up but given a fine on the spot.
His image was not being taken for a police database. It is like a super duper CCTV that matches the live image to a database already storing images.

DaisiesAreOurSilver · 16/05/2019 13:49

As to the incident itself, well anyone who covers their face upon seeing a Facial Recognition van (it was well marked) screams criminal

Paranoid much?

Original poster
badlydrawnperson · 16/05/2019 13:52

I wonder if anyone can think of any groups of people they see often with facial coverings? Are they all criminals? In order to avoid being considered criminal will they be expected to uncover their faces if they see a Police facial recognition camera?

OP posts:
Buster72 · 16/05/2019 14:18

It's all about base patterns of behaviour.
Cold day? You expect folks wrapped up in scarves covering faces.
Particular faith, again faces covered.
No problem.
Seeing a van marked "facial recognition" and hurriedly covering up....I would expect any cop to be curious as to why...

teyem · 16/05/2019 14:28

I'd have sworn at the police if they were experimenting with some digital-style face recognition panopticon for the masses and I passively covered my face only to be decended on by the police for a non-crime. I think piss off is pretty restrained in that scenario.

I've never had anything to do with the police. I live a world away from trouble with the police. But I'm increasingly aghast by this heavy handed bullshit and march toward

teyem · 16/05/2019 14:29

(what happened there?)

pursuing people who haven't committed a crime.

Yabbers · 16/05/2019 14:33

Police have no authority to stop you for covering your face.

This is clearly bollocks. The police have the authority to stop anyone they like, for any reason (and for none) They can ask you for ID, for any reason (and for none) They can ask you to uncover your face. None of that is outwith their authority. The only thing they can’t do (without reasonable cause) is search you.

You do not have to comply with their requests, you don’t have to uncover your face, you can say no I don’t want to. They may ask for your ID and if they have a reason for doing so, they can state it and if you refuse, you are at risk of arrest. If you are aggressive, you risk arrest.

Your title is disingenuous but I suspect you know that.

MrsBethel · 16/05/2019 14:43

@Buster72

Was anyone else in the vicinity....?

Probably. But no chance someone saying 'piss off' nearby would have made them feel alarmed. Or distressed. Or harrassed.

The police may not like being talked to like that. But there is no law against it. Using the public order act to criminalize people who are impolite to them is an abuse of power. It would never stand up in court.

Personally, I would never tell a copper to 'piss off' under any circumstances because I know that a great many of them are arseholes who are both ignorant of the law and willfully abuse it when it suits them. A great many are wonderful too, but it does attract arseholes with inferiority complexes like flies to a turd and you never know which you are dealing with.

MrsBethel · 16/05/2019 14:50

@Yabbers

They can ask anyone to stop, but that person is perfectly entitled to completely ignore them and carry on.
If the police then physically intimidate that person and force them to stop, that is an offence under the public order act, and a colleague should rightly arrest them. Of course they won't.

If the police have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed they can of course force anyone to stop.

Buster72 · 16/05/2019 15:02

@mrsbethel
True you can't be forced to "stop and account" but it really piques a cops interest when someone refuses a reasonable request and may give grounds for a further search....alongside other factors.

Please explain the public order bit though.

PettyContractor · 16/05/2019 15:03

I've watched the video. I think the police were dicks to give him a fine. I actually am OK with the idea that they should be able to stop someone who attempts to conceal his identity, as long they accept he doesn't have to engage.

MrsBethel · 16/05/2019 15:16

Not wanting to be stropped does not count as reasonable grounds for the police to stop you.

The fine here was under the Pubilc Order Act 1986. The irony is that if the police use threatening behaviour likely to cause a person alarm, harrassment or distress, they have themselves committed an offence under the act.

Physically intimidating someone to force them to stop clearly triggers this statute.

pikapikachu · 16/05/2019 15:22

I feel uncomfortable when I've seen a Google car so I totally understand why he might cover his face. The fine seems heavy handed to me but it's hard to know without being there.

I would bet good money on the software having problems with non-white faces because it's programmed by white people using white faces as data. The people who provide their faces as data should be volunteers or paid to do so and not forced by the police.

I think that the police is right to find new, cheaper ways to fight crime considering that their budgets are being slashed all the time. It's hypocritical of me to feel uncomfortable about cctv and the like when I'd hope that it would be used as evidence if I was a victim of a crime. (Don't they already use number plate recognition technology!) I think that considering the 65% accuracy that it's implementation is premature and it will lead to more racial tension as more BAME people are wrongly identified by the software.

Original poster
badlydrawnperson · 16/05/2019 15:30

This is clearly bollocks.

Er no, it isn't.

OP posts:
Yabbers · 16/05/2019 15:31

They can ask anyone to stop, but that person is perfectly entitled to completely ignore them and carry on.
Not really. They can ask you to stop and answer a question. Your failing to stop and listen can constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion and they can stop forcibly. Especially if your face is covered in a way that isn’t obviously for medical or religious grounds.

Original poster
badlydrawnperson · 16/05/2019 15:31

Your title is disingenuous

No it isn't.

OP posts:
Manclife1 · 16/05/2019 15:33

There are huge chunks missing from the account of what happened. But hey, you all feel free to be outraged without knowing the full facts.

Buster72 · 16/05/2019 15:42

@pettycontractor, he did engage, badly.
@mrsbethel in and of itself no not wanting to be stopped is not grounds, combine that with an attempt to cover up and I would expect any cop to onto you. I like your creative thought around the public order act though why don't you give it a bash one day?

@pikapicachu The fine was not for covering up, but sec 5 poa.
I would bet even better money that the programmers went to great lengths to make sure they had every conceivable skin tone and facial type.

Anyone want to congratulate the cops on two arrested for being wanted in the same operation or we fixated on a guy who went to some length to avoid being recognised...

Original poster
badlydrawnperson · 16/05/2019 15:46

Anyone want to congratulate the cops on two arrested for being wanted in the same operation

I'm afraid not. I don't agree with the use of this technology in this way at all.

OP posts:
runoutofnamechanges · 16/05/2019 15:54

Am I missing something? When does he tell the police officer to piss off? In the interview with the journalist, he says that he told the police officer "to fuck off basically" but I'm not sure he is quoting what he said verbatim or just using it as a figure of speech.

He isn't swearing or acting aggressively in the footage of him interacting with the police, just arguing back.

Buster72 · 16/05/2019 16:03

@badlydrawnperson.
What do you object to? The cctv genie left the bottle 20 years ago. Is this different from police on patrol saying " there's joe blogs from the briefing, let's nab him" it's just a load more efficient.

Are you worried that police will be able to summon up your movements at the click of a mouse? And know that you nipped to mcdonalds for lunch, sorry but Google, your phone service provider and your bank already have that information.

Original poster
badlydrawnperson · 16/05/2019 16:33

What do you object to?

What have you got :)

The retention of images captured of people who are otherwise unknown to the Police for a start.

As for your contention about Google etc your argument seems to be Google are being bastards with your data so why worry when the Police do it. I am not any happier about Google - in fact I posted a recent AIBU about the fact that US corporations seem to consider themselves above UK law and no-one in the UK seems to care.

I am not quite sure who I trust less with my data - Google or the Police but I am not happy about either.

OP posts:
Absolutepowercorrupts · 16/05/2019 16:50

There is so much tripe being spouted here. The Police do not have the right to stop you and ask for ID unless they have reasonable grounds to think that you have committed a crime. Or if they think that you are carrying a weapon.
If I was walking along a street and covered my face, and a Police officer told me to uncover it I would say no, if he then uncovered my face and took a photo I would be very annoyed.

justarandomtricycle · 16/05/2019 16:55

YABU to say it is absolutely outrageous that he was fined £90 when he got aggressive with Police and told an officer to "piss off".

Perhaps you could explain why you think the police shouldn't piss off when they are stopping and inconveniencing someone who hasn't broken any laws, with no good reason?

Just what exactly do people think the police are employed for?

This is a flagrant example of the police using the public order act to punish anyone they like for anything or nothing, and why the use of it needs serious review.