Useful Tool Or Breach Of Human Rights?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48315979

[dannyk13]

Useful tool

[spathiphyllum]

It is not a breach of human rights unless they fine / arrest those who cover their faces from the tech.

[Ken4155]

A useful tool? Does the fact that 92% -2,297/2,470 of potential matches were incorrect when scanned in 2017 in Cardiff. Quite a useless tool, imho. And potentially dangerous until more work is done to improve it.

[vulcan42]

San Francisco believes it is a breach of human rights and have banned it, I would like to think the human rights of UK citizens is equally as important.

[ToraToraTora]

ok ken suppose it does actually work, same question.

[Spicerack]

// And potentially dangerous until more work is done to improve it.//

Wouldn't that be the point of these trials, ken?

[Gromit]

It is both. It is definitely a useful tool.
But it is also a breach of someones privacy, data and identity.

By all means take convicted people’s fingerprints, DNA, blood type or retina scans. That information may be useful in detecting future crimes.

Innocent people should not be subject to the same invasions. If the police took my fingerprints or DNA without my knowledge, I would not like itas I don’t intend to commit any crimes.
Just because surveillance cameras can secretly take a digital map of our faces without consent or even knowledge is wrong.

And I do not trust the Police with my data. They are notorious at losing it, giving it away or generally misusing it.

[jackthehat]

As ever, this is a double-edged sword.

Definitely a useful tool *but* I am always wary about who will ultimately be given (i.e. buy) access to the information and how it would be used and whether any such access will be safeguarded.

[Gromit]

I am guessing we will quickly get the - “If you have got nothing to hide argument” .

But by law we have rights to privacy, and against intrusion. Would the same people who say nothing to hide, like to make their tax returns public, their credit data, their car registration data, their spent convictions?

[tamborine]

if it keeps nicabs off the street then equality is acceptible

[Ken4155]

Spicerack @ 09;51; Of course trials are need to ascertain if something works or not. But i would have thought the system would have been a little further advanced before trying it out on the public. I have no qualms about it's eventual implementation once it is proven. I do wonder, though, just how much one would have to disguise themselves - coloured contacts, thick rimmed glasses, bit of facial hair - to fool the system?

[cassa333]

I can go out with my camera and take pictures and film. When out in the public arena there is (I think) no intrinsic right to privacy where that is concerned.

It is what you do with it afterwards that’s the sticking point and of course I’m not an official body so to speak.

In all honesty I don’t have a problem with the concept as such. My reservations would be in the police ability to use the information lawfully and the accuracy of the technology. Although to be fair it will get better over time. What are the checks and balances to ensure that when it is inaccurate that the ‘wrong’ person isn’t unduly disadvantaged?

But there are strict rules and guidelines on the use of DNA and fingerprints so as long as it is in line with that then I think they should be able to use it.

[Samuraisan]

What I don't understand is the UK has so many CCTVs, now these, and no-one seems to object, but will not consider ID cards, with photos and fingerprints which are accepted in most other countries and would stop so much fraud.

[Old_Geezer]

They are not mutually exclusive options.

[Old_Geezer]

"no-one seems to object"
Probably because they know it's pointless. It's tolerated, it's not right.

[Peter Pedant]

// "no-one seems to object" . Probably because they know it's pointless. It's tolerated, it's not right.//

the fact that people on AB were discussing brexit endlessly does NOT mean people were silent

92% of complaints about CCTV to the ICO were about overlooking CCTV, and so he reacted by ..... saying it wasnt such a bad thing in itself

you have the six data principles that I think people have mostly quoted, fair processing and only used for the purpose etc....

I didnty realise it was so inefficient

[Peter Pedant]

Russia has five cameras in Red Square

and Putin couldnt believe that the skripal poisoners were tracked all the way up Wilton Rd by home cameras

[Peter Pedant]

report in the Times of the oral testimony

After matching a lot of the data is 'thrown away' - so they are edging towards - used only for the purpose for which it is collected