Police state cometh.

Since it's also relevant to the idealism surrounding this sort of security theatre. (US related and almost 5 years ago, but still)

Undercover DHS Tests Find Security Failures at US Airports

An internal investigation of the Transportation Security Administration revealed security failures at dozens of the nation’s busiest airports, where undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials, ABC News has learned.

The series of tests were conducted by Homeland Security Red Teams who pose as passengers, setting out to beat the system.


According to officials briefed on the results of a recent Homeland Security Inspector General’s report, TSA agents failed 67 out of 70 tests, with Red Team members repeatedly able to get potential weapons through checkpoints.
Click to expand...

It's laughable really, they're giving up their liberties to pick out 5% of criminals, similar levels of uselessness with these trials for facial recognition. Obviously the solution is less liberty for no security...
 
StriderX said:
I dunno, I question that as well, but then what would happen if you took a new born child and isolated it for twenty years? Is the lack of examples a hindrance to it's development or not? A liberal amount of hyperbole, but we aren't that individualistic to just survive free of other's machinations.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought you were talking about some kind of officially appointed moral authority agency. You meant the population itself?
In that case, it's very easy - Just a case of encouranging and empowering people to speak up, like they used to, and for those words to mean something... ideally with some ability to back them up if needs be, without fear of being sued six ways to Sunday because of it.

Right now, you can be all gangstah, talk about pimping your hoes, dealing your drugs, popping a cap in someone's arse and even brag about your jail time.... But imagine if you were rapping away and declared how many toddlers you'd ******. How well do you think that'd go down with people? How would they treat you? How would it impact simple things like popping down your local shops? How would your fellow gang-bangers look upon you?

Now imagine if people reacted the same way to other things, especially those considered more gang-fashion like carrying blades.
We need that kind of shame and deterrence, enforced by criminals' own people and cultures/sub-cultures, supported and even endorsed by the government and the law.
 
nkata said:
Facial recognition from a van set streetside is relatively benign, (until you feature on a TV cam show called 'Spot the looney').
Click to expand...
Benign you say....? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...met-police-face-cover-man-fined-a8756936.html
A man has been fined after refusing to be scanned by controversial facial recognition cameras being trialled by the Metropolitan Police.

The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods.

Campaign group Big Brother Watch said one man had seen placards warning members of the public that automatic facial recognition cameras were filming them from a parked police van.

“He simply pulled up the top of his jumper over the bottom of his face, put his head down and walked past,” said director Silkie Carlo.
“There was nothing suspicious about him at all … you have the right to avoid [the cameras], you have the right to cover your face. I think he was exercising his rights.”

Ms Carlo, who was monitoring Thursday’s trial in Romford, London, told The Independent she saw a plainclothed police officer follow the man before a group of officers “pulled him over to one side”.
She said they demanded to see the man’s identification, which he gave them, and became “accusatory and aggressive”.
“The guy told them to p*** off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.”

A spokesperson said officers were instructed to “use their judgment” on whether to stop people who avoid cameras.
Click to expand...
Even though this guy was under no obligation whatsoever to keep his face uncovered - and the officers who "pulled him to one side" had no authority to do so for the testing of the software, hence he had every right to protest at being stopped for no reason - it gives some indication of how the police will undoubtedly could view those who cover their face as suspicious.

The real danger is that if an innocent person is wrongly flagged up by the software they will be arrested and detained until proof of identity is established - this could take hours.

Here's another article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...hnology-arrests-accuracy-london-a9304911.html

Two deployments outside the Westfield shopping centre in Stratford in 2018 saw a 100 per cent failure rate
Click to expand...
Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney, who asked an urgent question on facial recognition, said an independent review of Metropolitan Police trials had been “damning” and found potential conflicts with human rights law.

“According to analysis of the Met’s test data, 93 per cent of supposed matches in their trials have been wrong,” she added.

“As well as being inaccurate, facial recognition technology has also been shown to be much less accurate in identifying women and ethnic minorities than it has been for identifying white men.”
Click to expand...
Anyone got a spare burka going cheap before demand soars?
 
enkoda said:
Potential rapists/killers?

I'm 'laughing' at just how ludicrous this is.
Click to expand...

We already have throughtcrime, so the only restriction on implementing precrime is the technology available. The same arguments apply. She wouldn't even have to write a new speech.
 
enkoda said:
The real danger is that if an innocent person is wrongly flagged up by the software they will be arrested and detained until proof of identity is established - this could take hours.
Click to expand...
An innocent person will generally furnish the Police with everything they've got in terms of identity, if only so they don't have to spend hours down the station proving it.
The only people who won't are those who have something to hide... and those pedantic **** sticks who like to YouTube themselves wasting Police time in protest of how much time Police waste in identifying innocent people - Usually impinging on their freedom as Soveriegn Citizens!! :D

enkoda said:
Anyone got a spare burka going cheap before demand soars?
Click to expand...
Make one yourself.
You own a t-shirt, right?
 
When as a teenager I began driving, there were no cameras. You needed one (or two) full fat policemen to stop you and remind you of the errors of your ways. There were no cameras public or private in streets or shops, recording your daily movements or events. There were no computers to store and regurgitate all these happenings, good or bad, for all eternity.

I do think technology has gone far enough, but how to reign it back is a far harder question as everyone relies on its use today.
 
Honestly the best way to rationalise not supporting this is how you'd feel if supposed megabad, ultra-marxist Corbyn was in the PM's seat while this was being pushed into operation...

;)

The closer we get to a homogeneous control system, the easier it becomes to just suddenly take it all away with little resistance. It'll be an ID card system next...
 
nkata said:
I do think technology has gone far enough, but how to reign it back is a far harder question as everyone relies on its use today.
Click to expand...
You allow some Gene Hunt style coppers the power to give you a good kicking if you act like a scrote and make you think twice about doing something that will land you in more serious trouble!! :D
 
I quite like the clothing designs that make facial recognition software go crazy (called hyperface I think). I hope it becomes widespread :D
 
Once 5G is up and running the police can just out source their duties to the Chinese Communist Party, probably get the Chinese to set up a social credit score for all UK citizens enforced by corporations like Google who are more than happy to help China set up their digital totalitarian police state. They're private companies right can do whatever they want to trample people rights...
 
Last edited:
ttaskmaster said:
An innocent person will generally furnish the Police with everything they've got in terms of identity, if only so they don't have to spend hours down the station proving it.
The only people who won't are those who have something to hide... and those pedantic **** sticks who like to YouTube themselves wasting Police time in protest of how much time Police waste in identifying innocent people - Usually impinging on their freedom as Soveriegn Citizens!! :D
Click to expand...
The best success this type of software has produced to date is 20% - so 8 out of 10 people recognised as 'criminal' have been identified incorrectly.

I don't have a driving licence and don't carry my passport unless needed for a specific purpose, so how can I prove my identity if I get flagged as a false positive?
ttaskmaster said:
Make one yourself.
You own a t-shirt, right?
Click to expand...
Will 30-year old y-fronts do instead? Some of the stains look like a face at certain angles....:D
 
This is only to keep us, general public in line, the same as everything else in the society we live in, Security & freedom are both just illusions.
"Criminals" will always find a way around this, they always do.
 
enkoda said:
Even though this guy was under no obligation whatsoever to keep his face uncovered - and the officers who "pulled him to one side" had no authority to do so for the testing of the software, hence he had every right to protest at being stopped for no reason - it gives some indication of how the police will undoubtedly could view those who cover their face as suspicious.
Click to expand...

That's pretty dodgy of those officers - there has already been a case re: this - they can't just fine someone for swearing at the police (unless there are other members of the public nearby who might be alarmed or distressed by it), especially after they've pulled him to one side without having any grounds to do so.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html

https://www.fosters-solicitors.co.uk/news/crime/is-it-ok-to-swear-at-the-police/206
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom