from Hacker News

Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

by mlmartin on 5/16/19, 12:20 PM with 180 comments

by StavrosK on 5/16/19, 1:02 PM
> The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”.
That's why it's called "erosion of rights" and not "outright nullification of rights". Unfortunately, it works, and it's entirely unsurprising that face surveillance will become normalized.
by bArray on 5/16/19, 3:30 PM
This makes me very sad for many reasons:
* People are losing their freedom of privacy in the name of safety and most accept it. Many are likely unaware at this stage of the trade-off.
* One activist was in presence by happen chance, otherwise this likely would have gone unreported.
* The database _currently_ only keeps peoples data for 30 days. When the UK leaves the EU, this will likely be extended. China has already experienced multiple data breaches.
* It's unclear what data is kept and deleted, I suspect that metadata may be retained indefinitely.
* The money being spent on these systems could be spent getting more officers on the ground. I have no doubt they are sinking millions of pounds into this project.
* The police initially started testing this system illegally, there were no repercussions.
* The majority of people being arrested as a result of this technology are probably not the worst people in society. I believe this will be used to disproportionately target poorer people and petty crimes.
* Telling an officer to "fuck off" or "piss off" is not a crime. It's not an offense to be rude and you certainly shouldn't have to "Wind your neck in" in fear of a public servant.
by Angostura on 5/16/19, 12:57 PM
From the Independent coverage:
> 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.
> “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.”
I live close to Romford, and I'm quite tempted to wander past with my face obscured and then politely decline if asked to be photographed.
Of course, I'm white, middle class and middle aged, so I probably wont be stopped.
by upofadown on 5/16/19, 2:34 PM
We haven't really even come to terms with the false positive rate associated with just looking at people. When law enforcement wants to check ID all they have to do is say they thought you looked like someone. The high rate of false positives is a feature not a bug. You could set up an empty box with a lens drawn on it with a motion detector aimed to go off 4% of the time and the result would be almost as useful to law enforcement as a facial detection system that actual did something. The facial detection just increases the efficiency of the "papers please" checkpoint.
by shawabawa3 on 5/16/19, 2:45 PM
Slight correction: It seems he wasn't exactly fined for hiding his face. Police asked him to uncover his face and he told them to "piss off", for which he was fined.
by telesilla on 5/16/19, 1:48 PM
In a science fiction world, those of us who cared about privacy would start wearing make-up (until it was banned):
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu...
We don't do this en masse now because "The very thing that makes you invisible to computers makes you glaringly obvious to other humans"
by ChuckNorris89 on 5/16/19, 12:42 PM
How do they enforce this on people wearing hijabs or other religios clothing that covers the face?
by cbovis on 5/16/19, 1:37 PM
Very interested to understand what sort of metadata is being stored from these cameras. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the cameras are being used to build a database of individual’s movements, whether deliberate or as a side effect of logging.
Any more information on this from a better source than the DM?
by pbhjpbhj on 5/16/19, 3:41 PM
This was on BBC Click, which is on YouTube (for me, I'm in UK though). A good programme overall.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFyBpcbH9A
They give stats and details.
It may not be the same incident as the OP, but it sounds broadly similar and the programme fleshes out the general situation well.
Edit: Actually it is the same guy. The issue and provision of the fine, etc., it's on the show.
by YeGoblynQueenne on 5/16/19, 3:30 PM
Is there another source for this? I don't even want to visit the Mail's website, let alone read whatever misrepresentation of what actually transpired that they have put down in their article.
by moron4hire on 5/16/19, 2:41 PM
>> After being pulled aside, the man told police: 'If I want to cover me face, I'll cover me face. Don't push me over when I'm walking down the street.'
Jesus, it's a good thing cops in London don't have guns. Can't imagine how this would have ended in one of the whitebread suburbs here in the US with our 'roided-out school-yard-bullies-turned-pro.
by stunt on 5/16/19, 4:16 PM
Well said that we are the last free generation.
It so weird how much of our freedom and privacy we are giving away. People used to fight for these stuff.
And then you would think how far this can go in near future if this is just the beginning.
After all, all these fear and mixed feelings about security and conflicts are caused by a long chain of reactions and consequences of bad decisions governments are making themselves around the world. And it is sad that normal people end up losing their privacy more than responsible ones do.
It requires a fundamental strategy change that is not going to happen in reality. I wonder what kind of destructive side effects it will have for the future generations specially to the culture.
by vixen99 on 5/16/19, 12:33 PM
For those who prefer not to go to the Daily Mail directly:
"Camera cross-checked photos of faces of passers-by against wanted database. One man covered face before officers stopped him and took his picture anyway. He was fined £90 at scene in Romford by police who arrested three other people Police say they know of human rights concerns but want to make London safer"
by marcod on 5/16/19, 4:20 PM
Another report https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/16/moment-man-fined-90-hiding-fa... It's a little bit like saying "If she doesn't want to be tossed into the water she must be a witch!"
by bredren on 5/16/19, 3:19 PM
I regularly see people going around with their faces covered in Portland. For example, guy in dark clothes on a bmx bike riding down east bank esplanade.
I assume that these folks have warrants. But I am not aware of any deployed facial recognition in Portland.
by coldcode on 5/16/19, 2:36 PM
1984 was not intended to be a how-to manual.
by Zenst on 5/16/19, 3:23 PM
I wonder if you could copyright your face and then use the law against the law. DMCA takedowns etc etc.
by TomK32 on 5/16/19, 1:55 PM
How good is this software if you just close one eye and make a grimace while walking by?
by teekert on 5/16/19, 2:22 PM
Show your face, slave!
by neiman on 5/16/19, 2:58 PM
... and now his face is all over hackernews. Great.
by sudoaza on 5/16/19, 3:15 PM
Police state intensifies
by pif on 5/16/19, 3:48 PM
I personally don't see any issue with this.
If you want absolute privacy, than stay at home.
If you want absolute freedom, than go live somewhere where nobody else lives.
Society runs on compromises: your freedon to swing your fist ends where my nose begins (and viceversa); your privacy ends where my safety is concerned (and viceversa).