Facial recognition objections - really?

[vowels]

Originally Posted by Nimbus

But it's not the technology that's at fault, it's what's done with it that's potentially wrong.

As you said, photographs were used in the past for this sort of thing. Should we ban photographs and cameras in public places?

Or should we just make sure that the technology is used correctly?

See more...

Never said technology was the problem, just the possible application.

[Mr Tom Morrow]

I'm sure I read that San Francisco has banned its use.
Mind you California has some weird ideas anyhow

[Nimbus]

Originally Posted by Froggy88

If you think privacy is unimportant for you because you have nothing to hide. You may as well be saying free speech isn't important to you because you have nothing useful to say.

See more...

That makes no sense whatsoever. You can't equate privacy to free speech - in fact, the right to privacy implies a restriction in the right to free speech to an extent (eg. have I got the right to tell the newspapers what you did in private on Saturday night or do you have the right to privacy?).

Privacy is important, of course it is. But having your image taken in a public place is not an invasion of privacy. Your face in a public place is not private; everyone can see it whenever you walk down the street. There is no privacy being invaded.

[Nimbus]

Originally Posted by vowels

Never said technology was the problem, just the possible application.

See more...

Then, as long as the technology is used to catch criminals then it's ok, yes?

The OP is pointing out that people are complaining about the technology being used for the right reasons. If these people were complaining about the technology actually being used for the wrong reasons then, yes, I could understand people's protests. But it isn't.

Like you, they are coming up with hypothetical scenarios where it could be used for the wrong reasons and using that as an excuse to complain. A slightly silly example, but that's like taking the police to court for having police cars and arguing that a car could be used to kill people. Just because some hypothetical crime could be committed by using that tech doesn't mean it is happening and doesn't mean that you should be able to take someone to court simply for having that tech.

[shack69]

I have no issue with authorities using FR but the issue is that they are not just using the system to identify people of interest, they are also using it to digitise all faces they capture and add them to a database. This would then allow them to track people and build a pattern of behaviour which they could then use to make assumptions. They are therefore doing this without explict authority. It is the gathering of this information which i have an issue with.
There is an additional issue which is private organisations are also gathering information and creating their own databases of people which they are then sharing with other organsiations. I can see why retailers would want this and where someone has been identified as a threat to their business eg shop lifter they should have the right to store that information. But consider that you go into Tesco and buy something both the image of you and the purchase can be linked , so when you go into another shop they can work out what to advertise to you.

So my view is that we need a formal legal policy to ensure this all handled in a controlled and accesible manner.

The point made earlier about images been stored at football matches years ago , these were just images and the were not digitised and its that digitisation which is the issue due to the analytics which can be run against it.

[YorkshireT]

I take the view I'm not bothered if I'm caught on CCTV, I don't care if my face is recognised, and I'm not fussed if I'm tracked online. I don't mind there being a DNA database. I'm not fussed about an Intel database the police may have, or the security services' ability to get access to my data.
This is because I don't commit criminal offences and I know the police, security services etc are not interested in me one iota- they have more than enough to do trying to track the huge numbers of criminals in the UK.
If you think the police have time to be supposedly tracking and building patterns of behaviour for innocent people, then you haven't worked in the police!

[Nimbus]

Originally Posted by shack69

So my view is that we need a formal legal policy to ensure this all handled in a controlled and accesible manner.

See more...

I agree with this. We need to make it clear regarding how this technology can be used and bound it's use.

Originally Posted by shack69

The point made earlier about images been stored at football matches years ago , these were just images and the were not digitised and its that digitisation which is the issue due to the analytics which can be run against it.

See more...

You can do analytics without digitising the data. Digitisation just makes the process a lot easier, especially in these days of digital computing. And analytics isn't a bad thing - it depends what you do with the information provided.

[mickey house]

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

I take the view I'm not bothered if I'm caught on CCTV, I don't care if my face is recognised, and I'm not fussed if I'm tracked online. I don't mind there being a DNA database. I'm not fussed about an Intel database the police may have, or the security services' ability to get access to my data.
This is because I don't commit criminal offences and I know the police, security services etc are not interested in me one iota- they have more than enough to do trying to track the huge numbers of criminals in the UK.
If you think the police have time to be supposedly tracking and building patterns of behaviour for innocent people, then you haven't worked in the police!

See more...

Very well put, and I was only saying a while ago to my son that I wish there were more police to do spot checks on drivers including drink and drug driving, and I would be more than happy to comply because like you I have nothing to hide. I have been pulled over once in the past 35 years and that was only because I had put a private plate on a car and it hadn't registered on the police computer.

I can understand criminals not liking technology that might catch them, but for innocent people to make such a fuss over face recognition that will help catch criminals is worrying to me.

[mandevillepete]

My iPad has facial recognition. I have to say sometimes I’m a bit offended that it recognises me particularly when I’ve just got out of the bath and have no makeup on

[neilhd]

Originally Posted by Froggy88

I hate the "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" arguement.

If you think privacy is unimportant for you because you have nothing to hide. You may as well be saying free speech isn't important to you because you have nothing useful to say.

See more...

EXACTLY this.

My usual response to people who say they have nothing to hide is "so you'd be ok with a government microphone, or video camera, installed in every room in your house?"

I think it was Ben Franklin who said (paraphrasing a bit) "those who sacrifice liberty in the name of security end up with neither".