Facial recognition objections - really?

[Guest]

I would be all for it if the authorities were ethical, reasonable and uncrackable. But the truth is they can't be as they are made up of rubbish imperfect humans the same as you and me, with the potential for corruption, illogical idealogy, tendency for inappropriate lust for power and error. So for that reason I would rather err on the side of caution for the good of the world on the whole.

[angelbabe]

How about we all get chipped with tracking devices, even every baby born? That would cut crime to almost nothing within a few years, I'm sure.

Who would say they wouldn't mind doing that as they have nothing to hide? 🤔

I'm all for cutting crime but how easy would it be to corrupt?

[Posiesmum]

Originally Posted by PPM

Alexa? Is it listening?

See more...

Originally Posted by neilhd

It is listening, but it is not constantly recording.

It listens for a wake-word (this is the reason it can only be one of a handful of pre-defined wake-words, as the device itself has to process the audio to see if it is something it recognises).

Only once the wake-word is heard does it record what is said, until it detects a gap.

It then stops recording and it is transmitted back to Amazon for processing. It's more akin to a user-initiated phone call.

It certainly isn't recording everything you say and sending it back to Amazon. Easily proven with a network scanner.

See more...

Wasn’t there a thread recently where people were convinced that their phones were listening because they were getting targeted ads on social media forums?

[mickey house]

Originally Posted by hvasey

10 years ago I would have been all for it but now we are sliding headlong into becoming a Police state where publicly stating a perfectly legal and normal opinion can get you arrested and cautioned and lead to the loss of your career. There are dozens of (mainly) Women going through this right now, imagine that our faces can be searched for, for having a ‘wrong’ opinion.

See more...

You are only cautioned when you accept that you are guilty of an offence and you then agree to have a police caution. If you refuse to accept a caution, then the police will pass the matter onto CPS for consideration of a prosecution, but often the CPS will decide not to prosecute especially if a person has a good previous record and it's a petty crime as it costs money and might not be in the public interest. So it's in the interest of the police for people to accept a caution as they can tick the box of having solved a crime.

So I'm unsure why innocent people are accepting police cautions, and I'm also unsure of the relevance to AFR, because if you are incorrectly identified by AFR then the police have no interest in you.

[cybermum]

Absolutely against it . Its the incremental erosion of personal freedoms , and don't use the it helps find the bad guys easier. The flip side is the it will put people’s safety at risk and hinder efforts to fight crime.

You only have to look to Russia to see the absolute terrifying Pandora's box this opens. Because it will.
Echoes Orwell's 1984 . It will be the first step into more personal freedoms being eroded. You may be ok with that..I certainly am not.

[neilhd]

Originally Posted by mickey house

You are only cautioned when you accept that you are guilty of an offence and you then agree to have a police caution. If you refuse to accept a caution, then the police will pass the matter onto CPS for consideration of a prosecution, but often the CPS will decide not to prosecute especially if a person has a good previous record and it's a petty crime as it costs money and might not be in the public interest. So it's in the interest of the police for people to accept a caution as they can tick the box of having solved a crime.

So I'm unsure why innocent people are accepting police cautions, and I'm also unsure of the relevance to AFR, because if you are incorrectly identified by AFR then the police have no interest in you.

See more...

I didn't know you could refuse one. I always thought the police just gave you a caution, didn't realise you could refuse it and go to court instead. But I wonder how many people would just say "fine, give me the caution" rather than the huge hassle and expense of potentially going to court.

I'll admit to not knowing the full implications of getting one either. Probably should do some reading!

[mickey house]

Originally Posted by neilhd

I didn't know you could refuse one. I always thought the police just gave you a caution, didn't realise you could refuse it and go to court instead. But I wonder how many people would just say "fine, give me the caution" rather than the huge hassle and expense of potentially going to court.

I'll admit to not knowing the full implications of getting one either. Probably should do some reading!

See more...

The police will always make a person aware that it's their choice to accept the caution and they can't give it without the person's consent and admittance of guilt. Most people will accept the offer of a caution often not realising that the CPS may not even bother taking the matter to court. That said, there is always the potential that if a person refuses a caution it could go to court and they could be convicted of a criminal offence (a caution is not a criminal conviction).

Cautions can show on disclosure and barring services checks, but in reality won't cause any issues to most people.

[CrochetFreak]

I have no problem with it. I am happy it is there. People objected to street cams being around but they have done so much good. If face recognition can identify the bad guys, then bring it on.

[WhereIBelong]

Originally Posted by CrochetFreak

I have no problem with it. I am happy it is there. People objected to street cams being around but they have done so much good. If face recognition can identify the bad guys, then bring it on.

See more...

round here all the street cams have done is move the drug dealers to the residential areas and get a few drunk people arrested, it is a double edged sword.