SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
London's Metropolitan Police Service will be testing facial recognition technology in a handful of locations across the central core of the British capital on both Monday and Tuesday for eight hours each day.
This trial marks the seventh such trial in London since 2016. In addition to the December 17-18 tests, authorities have said there will be three more tests that have yet to be scheduled.
Time to break out the Guy Fawkes masks, Londoners.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Central Londoners to Be Subjected to Facial Recognition Test This Week
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 47 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Monday December 17 2018, @03:47PM (7 children)
Even cross referencing against two data points is rather small thinking.
Every time I try to explain any kind of electronic tracking to people, regardless it is Facebook, facial recognition, store "loyalty/discount" tracking cards, or whatever they can only see the immediate information in front of then. (Hence the thinking they have nothing to hide, so it is all OK.)
The real, long term, goal of all data tracking involves aggregating data over billions, trillions or hojillions of data points over long periods of time.
The question might not be "where was this person on this night?", but "on average, where were people in this group on every Thursday since this system went in to place many years ago?", or taking it even further, "based on statistical modeling and historical data, where will each one of the people in this group likely be at a given time or set of times?". Or yet even further "based on the current modeling plus new parameters, identify possible new groups of similar people". Really, it goes on and on, deeper and deeper.
I mean why wouldn't someone want a system that could identify groups of potential terroristic, anti-patriotic, or just "undesirable" groups before they cause problems and nip it in the bud, so to speak. Why, the use does not even have to be that cut-and-dry, it could be used for highly targeted, highly optimized propaganda distribution, subtly changing political opinions, or much, much more.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 17 2018, @07:39PM (6 children)
Agreed. You're right on track. But, fall back just a little bit, and ask another question, which will lead off onto a new tangent.
Why is the government busily importing immigrants with totally different religion, values, and expectations from government? Why is the government apparently trying to displace the Anglo, Celts, Welsh, Normans, etc who make up the United Kingdom population? Just who is the "undesirable" here?
Consider that, as you step back forward in your thinking. You might conclude that, A. government KNOWS that they are allowing extremely undesirable immigrants into the country, and that's why they need surveillance or B. government doesn't trust it's own native citizens, so they have to watch those citizens until they are replaced. I leave it to you to come up with C. D. and E. or some combination thereof.
That tangent I mentioned will bring you right back to where you already were, but it may fill in a lot of missing details.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @08:16PM (5 children)
*Crazy person warning*
Your anti-immigrant conspiracy theories are nothing new, for thousands of years the more cowardly humans have long feared anyone and anything different from their daily experience.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 17 2018, @08:47PM
I take it then, that you approved of the Nazis. And, Imperial Japan. And, you are accepting of Sharia law, and chop-chop square.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @09:45PM (3 children)
These aren't just people immigrating through voluntary interaction.
Rather, the native population is funding the re-location and welfare of these people who otherwise wouldn't be able to integrate on their own, and these people are also extremely fertile relative to the native population.
There was a referendum to leave the EU, but there was no referendum on whether so many immigrants should be brought into the country. Explain these things.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday December 17 2018, @11:25PM (1 child)
The EU exit is a necessary precursor. While still in the EU it would be pointless to talk about limiting immigration as the EU rules didn't allow the UK to do so. The EU has free movement across its member states. Being able to control their borders again was a massive part of why Brexit passed.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:53AM
Being necessary, it doesn't mean it will be sufficient. I.e. the brexit may still happen without the immigration going down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:49PM
"and these people are also extremely fertile relative to the native population"
Their so FERTILE Steve! You don't even know. I once looked at one of those dark hairy men and became impregnated on the spot!! I'm still not sure why they think my name is Sharia.