Live facial recognition cameras may become 'commonplace' as police use soars
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
e.g. It would be valid to use these cameras to answer who was at a crime scene, when, and where did they go that day. It would not be valid to reconstruct a web of everyday associations stretching back months for someone just because an officer didn't like the way they look.
"let me put this camera in your store, you get $XX/month and security"
Just do that in stores in high traffic areas. Now you've got a big dataset. Overlap with location data to put a name to the face. Scifi has long seen this eg big brother eg minority reports
Although it does seem relevant. Given that these models run easily on phones 2 generations old (that's what they use in pubs, and if they use it in pubs, they use it everywhere), how will you stop it, even if you do get a law against it?
There is no (good) way to stop things that are that easy to do.
It is effectively already free.
I’m sort of curious why people haven’t already done this, when user fed tracking networks for planes and boats exist. Presumably the much more clear invasion of privacy is a part of it.
Drugs are deeply rooted in culture and humans are drawn to altered states of consciousness.
Modern surveillance tech isn’t rooted in the same biological or cultural factors, and enforcing laws about its use seems unlikely to suffer from the same issues brought on by the war on drugs.
Second, I just won't patronize your establishment, shopping center, or municipality if you do. I'd like to go to the UK, but because of this policy I will not. Menlo Park pushed back against ALPRs: I'll go there. I went to a different ski shop because the one closest to me has an ALPR. And so on.
One might assume from a game-theoretical perspective that this is no different from living in a village where essentially everyone knows everyone’s business, and the knowledge that that knowledge is mutual prevents people from acting badly with the information that they have. However, in the situation where a small minority of people have knowledge about everyone else, and not vice versa, this can give that minority unearned power over everyone else.
In practice, it doesn’t feel great. I hope this answered your question.
1. Data is retained by a handful of companies. If it is leaked, you'll have a lot of information on people that is suddenly fair game for anyone including insurance companies, PI, home invaders.
2. In the US, I'm not concerned about local government as much as federal when it comes to the fourth amendment. Suppose you have a rogue potus. He sends the national guard in to Atlanta, Chicago, and Downingtown to take over the systems of these companies. Now you say, "well I'll just remove my license plate!" But these companies are cataloguing make, model, color, bumper stickers, dents; so you can take off your plate in a situation like that but they are going to still be able to track you with a high degree of certainty. People were shocked by South Korea declaring martial law -- we've become so spoiled taking these essential laws for granted. (Sorry I don't know enough about British law.)
If they don't send all license plate data to the internet there isn't an issue. But they do.
At the fictional extreme, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817664#43818003
No shortage of non-fictional steps along that path.
The agreeable arguments I hear tend to make the case that the scale is the problem. There’s a huge qualitative difference between having a human officer tail a human suspect to track the latter’s movements in public because that person is suspected of having committed a crime versus tailing via automated machines everyone in the vicinity at all times for no reason other than “nobody said we can’t”.
This is exactly the nature of law though. Everything is allowed unless prohibited. Do you believe you have an expectation of privacy in the public sphere? If not, how could you disagree with the legality of the collection and review of activities performed in public?
I don't want a total surveillance state either but I can't see a basis for disallowing recording in public standing on the 4th amendment for support.
Just trying to connect panoptic recording to something that tends to motivate visceral reactions from people.
Not everything needs to be recorded. In point of fact, I see more than enough room for a right to non-overt recall-ability being worth at least discussing if only because we have evolved our capabilities to pervasively monitor to such a scale that it is nigh-required we sit down and really discuss this. There'll be no more familiar a generation than ours for coming to terms with these technologies if only because we brought them this far. It's our responsibility to contain their excess.
I may not like it, but it's their right. Just like I can't control their minds to not think about someone else's kids when they are alone with themselves. Same with speech I don't like.
IJ is the real deal. Check out their dossier of Supreme Court wins. It will be interesting to see what the eventual Supreme Court arguments and opinions are.
Google street view is helpful, though these things are going up at an alarming rate. There's also a website that has a list, though it isn't maintained (e.g. there are hundreds of these near me but none are on that website).
https://deflock.me/ https://github.com/FoggedLens/deflock
Looks like there are quite a few such sites:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveilla...
This is already how it works in many cities.
It's a theory that turns my stomach, frankly.
There’s a version of an answer to this where access to search these systems is so tightly logged that we never need to wonder about the answer to these questions. I doubt most of the systems being deployed worldwide are anywhere near that standard.
Good news! Basically... yes! https://drndata.com
Lenders are already buying that data by the boatload along with everyone else throwing cameras up.
In the UK (as in the case we're discussing)? No.
> How about your abusive ex, who knows and/or is a cop?
Like all other PNC access, this gets logged. Police genuinely do get disciplined and fired for abusing the PNC. Random officers cannot randomly look up plates on ANPR: only traffic police or more senior officers can and it, like every other access, gets logged.
The Data Protection Act allows us to find out who has been disciplined, demoted or fired, and the Met for example answer those.
> The stalker who somehow knew just where that woman would be when he killed her, was that just bad luck or did he slip someone a few hundred bucks or buy the data from a data broker?
Data brokers do not get PNC data in the UK. And you're imagining an unnecessarily fantastical, conspiratorial explanation of a stalker who "somehow knew where" some woman would be, when stalkers clearly manage this adequately by, like, ordinary stalking skills (and are rarely unknown to their victims in the first place; they usually have knowledge that was volunteered or was acquired firsthand). Women don't need this imaginary scenario to feel fear: old-fashioned hiding in a car and waiting will do it. More high-tech: hiding an AirTag will do it. Following on Facebook will do it.
Also imagining third party violence that happens due to police data access is irrelevant: police officers themselves commit violence. Probably start there.
> There’s a version of an answer to this where access to search these systems is so tightly logged that we never need to wonder about the answer to these questions. I doubt most of the systems being deployed worldwide are anywhere near that standard.
They are in the UK.
Are face recognition cameras a bad thing in the hands of the UK police? Probably sometimes yes. But these conspiratorial hypotheses don't need airing.
FWIW, I still think the US perception of the UK "surveillance state" is largely misplaced and is based on poor journalism about simple numbers of cameras that has never been adequately put into context.
These facial recognition cameras cannot be instantly used on some big national police surveillance mechanism because in essence no such system exists: the vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are not operated by police at all.
Most cameras are operated by local and regional councils (access for which the police would need to issue warrants or make detailed subject/time requests) or private businesses (ditto).
And most of the huge number of cameras the police imagine aren't connected to anything more complex than Ring. Even with Ring footage, British police find that if they want to use doorbell camera footage, it is faster to arrange a time to visit the owner or at best knock on the door of the householder and ask for it to be emailed or copied to an SD card. They do not have broad instant access, much less broad, instant, warrantless access.
The biggest risk is not outright abuse but malfeasance/misfeasance overuse, much more dull-witted, instant and humdrum: for example some of the operators perceive the desire not to walk past one of them to be evidence of criminal intent, and they use that as a justification for a stop and search.
Whilst the UK is not a «surveillance state» in the authoritarian sense, and they were certainly not the ones who invented CCTV, we must credit the British for pioneering the concept of ubiquitous CCTV as a tool of urban surveillance, which was complemented by a long-standing tradition of overzealous law enforcement – a legacy with undeniably robust historical roots. It is irrefutable that the UK was an early adopter of CCTV for security and policing purposes[0], much to the bemusement of the guests of Her Late Majesty and His Majesty now.
The British have certainly been instrumental – if not bestowing or spreading it (which is partially true, at least in the case of Australia and New Zealand), then at least influencing – in the widespread adoption of CCTV as a tool for urban surveillance in a large number of Western countries.
[0] One of the first significant deployments in Britain occurred in 1960, when temporary CCTV cameras were used to monitor the crowds at Trafalgar Square during a visit by the Thai royal family – https://www.farsight.co.uk/about-us/history/
Not sure I will take at face value the idea that the Thai royal family were shocked and surprised at overpolicing of potential protestors and that the Thai embassy advance teams had nothing to do with that.
Call me cynical.
So basically no punishment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-62729737
https://policeprofessional.com/news/pc-to-stand-trial-over-m...
But being sacked as a police officer in the UK is a fairly big deal. There's no Fraternal Order of Police to ease you into a cushy security job, and there's no macho culture of celebrating corrupt police. Being charged for misusing one's position would be pretty devastating. Policing in the UK is "by consent" and people don't take too kindly to stuff like this.
The 23 and me fuck up is also a good example, data is forever, laws and morales are very temporary
Took me less than a minute to think of that example. I’m sure there’s more ways that information could be used against my interests.
You just ask the customer to tell you, perhaps with one of those driving monitoring apps/devices that people use to lower premiums. Pretty commonplace now.
FWIW, having worked on car insurance applications, most insurance companies do not much care about microtargeting consumers in this way. Beyond looking at their claims history and the kind of car they are driving, it is a large-scale numbers game, and the way you know which customers, for example, tend to go out more at night when it is dangerous is to look at their age (more likely very young) and gender (more likely male). And then you just make them all pay more. There's no particular reason to get any more forensic than that; it's more costly and it probably doesn't deliver much extra value.
And if young drivers complain, "hey, I am an excellent safe driver, I've done my advanced test, and I don't take risks", you say: "Great. Use one of our driving monitoring apps or devices, prove it and we'll happily give you lower premiums!"
I could tell you a couple of horror stories I am not going to repeat on the internet because they are old news now and times have changed, but I really must say, it's not necessary to imagine what government data could be used for in the hands of insurance companies: it's much more likely that insurance companies will simply incentivise customers to hand over the data. People who want lower premiums will jump through all sorts of hoops to get them.
Pretend you are in op sec for personal information and you'll quickly come up with a dozen examples. Ranging from individuals abusing access for nefarious reasons [1], institutions using it to reward hack kpis to what's happening in America with illegal ICE arrests.
I reject claims by law enforcement that this will lead to making their lives less safe and that they will need to take steps to mitigate it including wearing masks and not giving out their names.[1]
In small towns of old every knew the police and judge, where they lived and which schools their children attended because their kids may have even sat next to them in class. This was fine and served as a moderating force for the worst impulses of law enforcement.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance [1] https://calgaryherald.com/news/calgary-police-service-doxing...
The criminal underclass becomes even more 'under' as fairly large numbers (integer percentage of the population) of people are forced to avoid known camera locations. All of a sudden someone's kid can't take the bus to work/school because they have a failure to appear warrant stemming from apprehension in a flashmob or participation in a sideshow or some other 'lifestyle' crime associated with certain ethicities, which inevitably adds to the political spice level. Essentially everyone in certain areas will start wearing shiesties/masks, which is unlikely to ease tensions. Involvement with the criminal justice system will now carry even more of a 'weight' as being flagged by the system can happen anywhere, not just in traffic stops.
You'll have massive complaints when accountability comes crashing down on the significant population of Americans who are frequent fliers with the criminal justice system. This will be true even if cameras only alert on known faces in preloaded databases (e.g. active warrants), something that's going to be pretty hard to argue against with most of the standard arguments used against license plate readers — hard to argue a violation of privacy if it only alerts on known bad guys and doesn't keep any history.
And in terms of sousveillance, plenty of people would happily stand up and claim credit for a system that alerts only on known 'bad guys,' so deanonymizing them won't work. Further, it's really hard for politicians argue against it when the counterargument is "you literally want to protect known murderers, kidnappers, and child molesters from being apprehended."
And there's the separation between public and private conversation too. Where do we draw that line?
I had a post removed the other day. The moderator's identity (or psuedoidentity) remained hidden. Mine didn't of course. The conversation over his motive and actions remained hidden from public view too.
And that seems bad to me.
So ya, that line.
When Yugoslavia disintegrated, and old ethnic hatreds flared up, neighbors for decades, would suddenly rat out or attack their neighbors. Same with Rwanda.
This world being us closer to the solution: build ecosystems where data is stored in s way that is owned by the community rather than a company.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-ski-mask-ban-bala...
At this rate they should just make everyone wear a big QR code containing our names and social security numbers on our shirts. A sort of license plate for people. Would save on processing power at least.
(FYI the parent Guardian article is about England and Wales, not the US. There is a similar level of surveillance cameras but comparing use of force to the US, police in England and Wales only fatally shot 2 people in 2023/24 [2], 24 deaths in or following police custody and a further 60 fatalities defined as other deaths during or following police contact. for which [2b] is a report with demographics.)
[0]: "Atlanta’s controversial ‘Cop City’ training center opens after years of fighting" https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/at...
[1]: "The Companies and Foundations behind Cop City" https://afsc.org/companies-and-foundations-behind-cop-city
[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/319287/deaths-during-or-...
[2b]: https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/our-work/research-and-stati...
Movies like Minority Report try to show the surveillance state as being a struggle to overcome, but it is still always too easy. Computers don’t get distracted, scale perfectly, and can run 24-7. You can’t just sneak away with your head down, because the machines would have tracked you into a place, would know exactly who is in every building, and would be able to associate the person exiting a building with the person who went in. They wont forget.
I am not saying this is a bad thing in the case of a pre-planned murder. But it does make it obvious how hard it might be to evade notice in the future, assuming you are doing it for more legitimate privacy reasons.
In my area, the police are all over teenagers for loitering in parking lots on the weekends, but do nothing about the very obvious drug dealers in the local trailer park.
They abolished this system in 2014 [1] because they'd long since reached saturation of permanent Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) readers [2] from >11000 cameras on UK roads, and scanning over 50 million vehicles per day.
It's also common to have 'Average Speed' systems on major roads and even country roads where the accident rate exceeds a threshold defined by the local councils. Those will issue you a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and points on your licence for a moving violation if you exceed the speed limit. Beyond the 'Average Speed' infrastructure is a giant number of fixed cameras which measure speed and capture imagery of your vehicle, number plate, and the driver and automatically issue the PCN for speeding, and mobile vans operated by the authorities and deployed anywhere they consider a "hotspot".
All of this costs you money immediately to pay the PCN, costs you money over time because insurers hike their rates, and after 2-4 violations in 36 months, can result in you losing your ability to drive and trigger an extended "retake driving test" (after your disqualification period).
This is much more draconian than the United States where in many states a moving violation (like a speeding infraction) will only be processed by a policeman pulling you over for a chat.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vehicle-tax-changes
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni...
There are also very big differences in road casualty rates[0]
The UK has 2.61 road deaths/100,000 inhabitants, 3.8/billion vehicle-km.
The US has 12.84 and 6.9.
The US dropping to the UK rate would be a difference of around 35,000 lives per year.
States vary a lot[1]. The lowest is:
5.7/100,000 for Rhode Island 7.1/Billion Vehicle-km for Massachusetts
Highest:
26.2/100,000 for Mississippi 20.8/Billion Vehicle-km for South Carolina.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_road_de...
That seems good? Either we think speed limit laws should be enforced or we don’t.
In the bay area where the speed limit seems to be infinity the effective speed limit is around 80mph even if the posted limit is 65.
I tell my kids this isn't normal, this isn't what the US used to be like, but they don't know any different, so to them giving up just a little bit of this (like we did with the Patriot Act) isn't a big deal.
That's why books like "1984" used to be required reading in grade-school Literature class (fully supported policy by the History and Civics class teachers), and the "messier" bits of our nation's history were taught openly as "mistakes to be learned from so that we never repeat them" way back when I was a kid and dinosaurs still roamed the Earth...
The idea was (as one teacher explained to me) that we would learn the dangers to watch out for, and as good little patriots, we'd always be ready to defend the freedoms of our great nation whether threatened from without or within.
Idk, maybe people should start vandalising these cameras
In which case, what good does it do?
1. No reduction in crime
2. A huge chilling effect on the innocent population, further subduing people and paving the way for more authoritarianism.
3. Large amounts of profit for a private company
> The Met arrested 587 people in 2024 with the assistance of the live facial recognition cameras of which 424 were charged with offences.
Of those arrested, 58 were registered sex offenders in serious breach of their conditions and 38 have been charged.
How many of those arrests were possible ONLY by the use of these cameras?
The denominator very much matters here.
Do you really think there aren’t police forces that will use this in the furtherance of political goals?
https://apnews.com/article/nypd-george-floyd-protests-settle...
https://www.nyclu.org/press-release/face-lawsuit-nypd-ends-r...
They're all built on a flawed principle - that criminals don't have and will not use workarounds. In reality, only law-abiding people have no workarounds.
- Robert J. Oppenheimer
The 'do nothing and don't advance' option is just an illusion. Because in actuality what happens is "Only the worst people get the option.". Life isn't very kind to those attempting moral purity unfortunately. There is a reason 'worldly' and 'morally pragmatic' are synonymous.
If you want to reduce harm, if possible countermeasures are probably the best you can do. It varies by specific technology. Depending upon the tech this may ironically involve working with the very thing you are trying to weaken. Or it may be something completely different, say working in materials science instead of ballistics.
I know an ex-policemen that is a good man but hated working in the police because the "public" was aggressive and were challenging them constantly (would not name the country or specific stories). From their point of view "automatization" would make police job safer and easier, and convincing them of the contrary has few chances.
The more "not-connected" is the society (with people not having a friend that is "a policeman", "a firefighter", "a teacher", etc), the more problems we will have no matter the technology...
Because they're not all that way, and some of them still do genuinely try to "Protect and Serve"? And then you have the others mentioned "fire fighters", "teachers", etc, again many of whom are just tryin' to do some good in the world. Hunt all those good ones down and hold them up as examples of how the rest should be trying to do their jobs. Just complaining about the bad ones and acting like they're the only ones certainly doesn't make the situation any better for them or us.
I just encourage you to meet people and talk to in person to them rather than think in "classes": "them", "the police", "etc". Some (or many?) are normal, reasonable people, and we need to find a solution together not only "fight" and "blame".
closest thing we have workable day to day are gaiters (balaclavas imo don't work outside cold winter months, gaiters you can where in hot weather too - get it wet, it'll shed heat)
still doesn't help with the eyes. or your gait. and face masks have people rolling their eyes at you and likely will for the next 5-10 years, despite sorta working if you're sick.
RFK Jr. bans all masking in public.