cross-posted from: discuss.online/post/34575435
It is kinda nuts that the alleged warnings of the past were just priming us into thinking it is all ok for them to do.
Good gravy. 1984 wasn’t a guidebook.
Facial recognition to be rolled out nationwide in major police reforms
Submitted 14 hours ago by ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 10 hours ago
But it was. George Orwell knew what they wanted and how they thought.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 12 hours ago
Brits need to wake up to the fascism in their country, it’s much more quieter than the US but no better.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 11 hours ago
I remember hearing about how Britain had so many cameras that it was a privacy nightmare as early as 2000 or 2001. The more time passes and the worse it gets and when Snowden even revealed that the UK government was trying to build a master database of all UK citizens internet activity as early as the mid 2000s it became EXTREMELY evident to me where and how Orwell got his ideas for 1984. While it might have seemed unthinkable to many, the ideas that would lead to that kind of surveillance is a lot older than many people think.
And the reason why they didn’t do it earlier is because… well, how do you do it at a time when recording equipment was costly to setup and extremely obvious AND posed no obvious benefit to the person it was being targeted at. Things like wire tapping phones has been possible since the earliest days of telephones (wire tapping became a known police/spy technique as early as 1928 in Olmstead v. United States), but in practice wiretapping all phones at the time was impossible. You couldn’t record all calls and those calls had to be listened to by a human. It was not possible. But today it is absolutely possible to do all that and more.
At least smart phones and the internet are both extremely useful and highly critical things. Having a camera in your home that doesn’t let you use it does not… but you can also use your ring camera that you set up in your home.
Unquote0270@programming.dev 11 hours ago
The problem is there is more than one branch of it happening at once. We have this stuff but we also have the far right politics which is much more blatant. What most of those morons don’t understand is that their movement is driving the justification for these overbearing technology changes yet are the first ones to cry about it.
defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 hours ago
This is the same problem that we had in the US. Neoliberalism will always lead to fascism since it breeds the economic hardship that causes fascism or revolt, and the powerful are able to tilt the scale away from revolt towards fascism, which is their preference.
The solution is to take over the more left party by any means necessary since the UK, much like the US, has a FPTP voting system. In the US, the Democrats were consistently able to rig their primaries against the more leftist candidates through a multi-level strategy. Don’t let that happen over there.
Trump is a symptom of a greater problem in the US.
Armand1@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Has anyone here actually read the article? As far as I can tell, facial recognition is being increased in availability, but it was already in use.
Every police force in the country will be able to use live facial recognition vans, with the number of vans set to rise from ten to 50.
It’s also worth noting that in the UK for a very long time now any data that is not E2EE can be seized by the government from companies without the consent of their users if a warrant is issued. That’s obviously bad but nothing new.
It sounds like what’s actually new here is that the police is becoming more centralised and organised. Instead of a lot of smaller departments in local areas with lack of expertise, more centralised organisations will do the policing.
The article covers some pros and cons from different people’s perspectives.
- There might end up being more policing in cities and less in rural areas.
- There might be some downsizing of policies forces
- Police forces may be less accountable as they grow.
- Police forces believe they will be better equipped to tackle cybercrime.
Overall, to me, this seems like a generally negative move. I don’t want the police to spy on people, and I want them to be more knowledgeable about their local area and more accountable to their people. It does look like there might be more surveillance, and that’s bad too.
Please read don’t take headlines for granted.
switcheroo@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Protest this, guys. You know exactly where this sort of shit is headed…
reddig33@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Don’t do it. Do you see what’s going on in the US right now? All it takes is one bad regime coming to power to abuse the hell out of these kinds of tools.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 8 hours ago
That’s the idea, I am afraid.
noxypaws@pawb.social 8 hours ago
“reforms” is supposed to imply improvement, not deterioration
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 7 hours ago
Reform just ultimately means change. Meaning they can get rid of those pesky things like privacy and search warrants and right to silence. If the AI says you are guilty then you are. No appeals. If it turns out later that you aren’t then you still must serve your sentence but we will correct the problem only if it impacts the provider’s bottom line.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
1984 was not an instruction manual.
I hate how plausible that movie is.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 hours ago
Wow, the UK is speed running after the US, only less clowny
At least in the US there are finally some protests. When is the UK going to stand up for their rights?
U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
10 years ago i would have never believed UK would have their own Schutzstaffel, and that it would be AI
today i’m not surprised by literally any shitty thing that happens
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 13 hours ago
I hate to say it, but it remember around 2000 the UK being called the most surveilled country in Europe due to massive numbers of cameras. I thought it was bad back then, but I had no idea how much worse it would be.
ReverendIrreverence@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
“Facial recognition” and “major police reforms” should not be able to be used in the same sentence
victorz@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Nation-wide iiiin the UK, I assume, going by the URL. Important to include which country, I feel.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 7 hours ago
Yes. I apologize. I should have mentioned it.
Small_Quasar@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
“nationwide”
“England and Wales”
PattyMcB@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Get out the ICP face paint!
GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml 6 hours ago
Drag makeup can also be effective!
PattyMcB@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Huh… til
Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
Plastic surgery will have a surge in popularity
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 10 hours ago
They will account for that.
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
Absolutely disgusting. It’s like Labour wants to make sure they lose the next election… But to who would they lose? The conservatives who like this stuff too?
England is off my list to visit, as a Canadian, I take pride in the fact that facial recognition is illegal in most instances.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 13 hours ago
I am Canadian, too (naturalized citizen) and can I have the legislation that banned facial recognition?
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
biometricupdate.com/…/canadian-court-upholds-clea…
Same in BC
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
idtechwire.com/alberta-court-upholds-ban-on-clear…
Reaffirmed last year that it violates PIPA in Alberta.
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/…/an_211214/