7 ms·

"WITH its estimated one million security cameras, London is pioneering a new area of detection". - Insane, and scary.

iofj 11y ago
... and of course making the problem systematically worse. They explicitly state that they're after people who were filmed - just filmed - at the London riots a few years ago. They're looking to arrest them, and to extract damages from them. At those riots, absolute worst case 10-20% of people will have stolen or smashed things, with most just rallying for justice. But that doesn't even matter. The vast majority of those people aren't criminals, and even of the ones that did commit criminal acts during those riots 99% aren't "regular criminals" (meaning any more disrespectful of laws than a bad landlord is, day-to-day). But arresting these people will seriously impact their situation, their job, their prospects, and bring them a LOT closer to becoming criminals. And even the ones where it doesn't make them criminals, it will make them much more likely to riot again, for obvious reasons. This is stupid, dangerous, and merely meant to make a few people in power feel good about themselves.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  I may have missed it, but I didn't see where the article states that they were after people who were merely present. It implies that they were looking for people like Stephen Prince who were actually filmed looting, burning, and assaulting.
  - iofj 11y ago
    I would argue that it doesn't even matter, but I'll try to clarify my reading of the article. The example name they give is "an obvious case" (nevertheless giving a name like this of someone who isn't convicted is an egregious violation of due process). But here's the paragraph I'm talking about: > Soft-spoken and gentle-mannered, Constable Collins carries a baton and pepper spray, but no gun. His weapon is his memory: Facial recognition software managed to identify one suspect of the 4,000 captured by security cameras during the London riots. Constable Collins identified 180. Note the nice, round number. I wonder how that was established. Note that the sentence strongly implies that the only thing that makes these people suspect is being "captured by security cameras during the London riots". Those security cameras are pointed at streets, not shops, not office buildings, not private property, they couldn't have gotten a good look at the people who looted and burned. This footage is very low quality: grainy 640x400 or less (cheap image sensors from around 2008, also the common resolution of the example images) black-and-white filmed in very bad lighting conditions at a distance of at least 6-7 meters (they hang those cameras up high), with most people on those cameras at at an average distance of 30 meters (my guess at half the distance between two of those security cameras from walking around in London). At that distance, a face is between 5x5 and 20x20 pixels. You can't tell me they have less than 10% error rate. And of course, the subject given is black, and all the police officers mentioned are white. I'm not even implying racism here, people are notoriously bad at identifying members of other ethnic groups correctly. Example of footage here[1]) And aside from the people who were right next to the police, I doubt there were many assaults at all, though I'd expect a few. But even if they do find the looters. They're not catching any reasonable percentage of them, they're just randomly punishing 4000 people : let's say they actually "catch" 2000 of them, and let's assume a 30% error rate (seems like the absolute minimum reasonable to me). So in effect, they're slapping jail on 660 innocents, and 1340 people who damaged property during a riot. Of the people who burned and looted, that 1340 is going to be, comparing with the numbers reported looting, somewhere between 2% and 5% of them. The point is that this is going to be very bad for the social situation in London, and not going to change the fact that there's a very high chance that you can loot and get away with it during riots. It's all the bad, with none of the good. [1] http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/criminalminds/images/7/76/July_7_bombers.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20130814183807 http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/criminalminds/images/7/7... http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/07/us-britain-bombings-idUSL0647701120070407 http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/07/us-britain-bombing... http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5828360.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Screen-Shot-2015-06-05-at-124049.png http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5828360.ece/ALTERNATE...
- task_queue 11y ago
  It's meant to sent a message: get involved with people or movements we don't like and you will be systematically hunted down. The chilling effect is real.
  - sambe 11y ago
    I think it's meant to send the message that looting and burning a city on a large scale will cause you to be hunted down, actually.
    - iofj 11y ago
      The net effect, however, is to make sure ~4000 people will have less choices in the future, and a more miserable life. Looting and burning a city on a large scale, of course, will always be one of the remaining choices. Furthermore, the more miserable life part will provide extra incentive to do so.
    - task_queue 11y ago
      They are admitting to using two year old footage to identify people in a crowd, who are associated with people who turn violent. It implies that they can and will dedicate that much time and power to put you on lists and possibly harass you for exercising your freedom of speech and assembly. Given the relationship between the police and protesters, I wouldn't want to suffer the repercussions of being in their systems as one. The result is that I'm less likely to become politically active out of fear of being identified and associated with subversives in the eyes of my government.
- peteretep 11y ago
  Can you give examples of people who were arrested for no -criminal behaviour? I'd thought they were just arresting people who'd been pictures commuting crimes? Also: why is being arrested such a big deal? You'll get mugshotted, swabbed, but unless CPS charge you (for which they need to believe they have a reasonable chance of a conviction), it's not going to show up in a background check.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Please google "joint enterprise". Just being at the scene of a crime can be enough to convicted of it in the UK. EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose Also you don't need to be convicted of a crime in the UK to be given a record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution
    - peteretep 11y ago
      I don't think you read either of the links you posted. For starters, you have to admit guilt to get a caution. Secondly, can you give ANY examples of people from the London riot's who were arrested for attendance only? Like even a single example?
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Firstly this is bigger than just the riots. There are people doing long sentences for being present at crimes committed by other people. (Some of them may be fully deserving as they planned it together but others rather less so.) Secondly do you know anyone who's ever been questioned by the police? The situation when they offer you the caution is rather intimidating.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    This case is worrying. He was guilty of some crime, but not the crimes they charged and sentenced him with. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/joint-enterprise-guidelines-prevent-miscarriages-justice http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/joint-enterpr... https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/03/31/case-study-wayne-collins-played-no-active-role/ https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/03/31/case-study-... There are a bunch of these.
- Sven7 11y ago
  What is your solution?
gaius 11y ago
I'll tell you a true story a few years ago while I was supervising a training session for divers at the swimming pool, someone broke into a some of our lockers. He got away with phones, tablets, credit cards, cash. Stupid crime because we can remote-brick devices now, cancel credit cards, and the money he stole from my wallet was actually Mexican. Anyway, he was captured on CCTV inside the building and outside, but all you can tell from the footage, that the police showed me, was that he was a black guy about 6 feet tall, and that's it. So when people worry about the surveillance state I just smirk. None of it actually works in any useful way, it's all security theatre. Oh, wait, it is useful for extorting motorists who stray into an unmarked "bus lane", but that's about it.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >So when people worry about the surveillance state I just smirk. None of it actually works in any useful way, it's all security theatre. This was what I always suspected pre-Snowden: that the government simply wasn't capable of creating a system to effectively monitor all internet traffic because they didn't have the technical chops. Which, in, say, 2001, might have been true. Turned out all they needed was time and money and they had both and then once it was revealed that they could do it and actually do it rather well it came as a shock (to me, at least). Two years ago was a long time in camera and facial recognition technology.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > When it does happen, you'll barely notice it either. You'll wake up one day, read the news and discover that somebody was caught using facial recognition technology that the police has been using for a year and it only came out because some court docket had to be made public. The police is pretty open about the legal powers they have and the technology they use. And people have already been caught by facial recognition - the submitted article talks about it.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      Yeah, I just realized it was about more than human recognizers. The future arrived a little early. Hence the edit.
Shivetya 11y ago
and here I thought Atlanta was getting worrisome when they bragged about ten thousand crime/police cameras replete with statements "if you are not doing anything wrong". This is on top of all the license plate scanner equipped cars which likely one day will morph into scanning people with facial recognition software. They even secure private money to put more cameras in

iofj 11y ago

... and of course making the problem systematically worse. They explicitly state that they're after people who were filmed - just filmed - at the London riots a few years ago. They're looking to arrest them, and to extract damages from them. At those riots, absolute worst case 10-20% of people will have stolen or smashed things, with most just rallying for justice. But that doesn't even matter. The vast majority of those people aren't criminals, and even of the ones that did commit criminal acts during those riots 99% aren't "regular criminals" (meaning any more disrespectful of laws than a bad landlord is, day-to-day). But arresting these people will seriously impact their situation, their job, their prospects, and bring them a LOT closer to becoming criminals. And even the ones where it doesn't make them criminals, it will make them much more likely to riot again, for obvious reasons. This is stupid, dangerous, and merely meant to make a few people in power feel good about themselves.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
I may have missed it, but I didn't see where the article states that they were after people who were merely present. It implies that they were looking for people like Stephen Prince who were actually filmed looting, burning, and assaulting.
- iofj 11y ago
  I would argue that it doesn't even matter, but I'll try to clarify my reading of the article. The example name they give is "an obvious case" (nevertheless giving a name like this of someone who isn't convicted is an egregious violation of due process). But here's the paragraph I'm talking about: > Soft-spoken and gentle-mannered, Constable Collins carries a baton and pepper spray, but no gun. His weapon is his memory: Facial recognition software managed to identify one suspect of the 4,000 captured by security cameras during the London riots. Constable Collins identified 180. Note the nice, round number. I wonder how that was established. Note that the sentence strongly implies that the only thing that makes these people suspect is being "captured by security cameras during the London riots". Those security cameras are pointed at streets, not shops, not office buildings, not private property, they couldn't have gotten a good look at the people who looted and burned. This footage is very low quality: grainy 640x400 or less (cheap image sensors from around 2008, also the common resolution of the example images) black-and-white filmed in very bad lighting conditions at a distance of at least 6-7 meters (they hang those cameras up high), with most people on those cameras at at an average distance of 30 meters (my guess at half the distance between two of those security cameras from walking around in London). At that distance, a face is between 5x5 and 20x20 pixels. You can't tell me they have less than 10% error rate. And of course, the subject given is black, and all the police officers mentioned are white. I'm not even implying racism here, people are notoriously bad at identifying members of other ethnic groups correctly. Example of footage here[1]) And aside from the people who were right next to the police, I doubt there were many assaults at all, though I'd expect a few. But even if they do find the looters. They're not catching any reasonable percentage of them, they're just randomly punishing 4000 people : let's say they actually "catch" 2000 of them, and let's assume a 30% error rate (seems like the absolute minimum reasonable to me). So in effect, they're slapping jail on 660 innocents, and 1340 people who damaged property during a riot. Of the people who burned and looted, that 1340 is going to be, comparing with the numbers reported looting, somewhere between 2% and 5% of them. The point is that this is going to be very bad for the social situation in London, and not going to change the fact that there's a very high chance that you can loot and get away with it during riots. It's all the bad, with none of the good. [1] http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/criminalminds/images/7/76/July_7_bombers.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20130814183807 http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/criminalminds/images/7/7... http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/07/us-britain-bombings-idUSL0647701120070407 http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/07/us-britain-bombing... http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5828360.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Screen-Shot-2015-06-05-at-124049.png http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5828360.ece/ALTERNATE...
task_queue 11y ago
It's meant to sent a message: get involved with people or movements we don't like and you will be systematically hunted down. The chilling effect is real.
- sambe 11y ago
  I think it's meant to send the message that looting and burning a city on a large scale will cause you to be hunted down, actually.
  - iofj 11y ago
    The net effect, however, is to make sure ~4000 people will have less choices in the future, and a more miserable life. Looting and burning a city on a large scale, of course, will always be one of the remaining choices. Furthermore, the more miserable life part will provide extra incentive to do so.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    They are admitting to using two year old footage to identify people in a crowd, who are associated with people who turn violent. It implies that they can and will dedicate that much time and power to put you on lists and possibly harass you for exercising your freedom of speech and assembly. Given the relationship between the police and protesters, I wouldn't want to suffer the repercussions of being in their systems as one. The result is that I'm less likely to become politically active out of fear of being identified and associated with subversives in the eyes of my government.
peteretep 11y ago
Can you give examples of people who were arrested for no -criminal behaviour? I'd thought they were just arresting people who'd been pictures commuting crimes? Also: why is being arrested such a big deal? You'll get mugshotted, swabbed, but unless CPS charge you (for which they need to believe they have a reasonable chance of a conviction), it's not going to show up in a background check.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Please google "joint enterprise". Just being at the scene of a crime can be enough to convicted of it in the UK. EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose Also you don't need to be convicted of a crime in the UK to be given a record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution
  - peteretep 11y ago
    I don't think you read either of the links you posted. For starters, you have to admit guilt to get a caution. Secondly, can you give ANY examples of people from the London riot's who were arrested for attendance only? Like even a single example?
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Firstly this is bigger than just the riots. There are people doing long sentences for being present at crimes committed by other people. (Some of them may be fully deserving as they planned it together but others rather less so.) Secondly do you know anyone who's ever been questioned by the police? The situation when they offer you the caution is rather intimidating.
- DanBC 11y ago
  This case is worrying. He was guilty of some crime, but not the crimes they charged and sentenced him with. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/joint-enterprise-guidelines-prevent-miscarriages-justice http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/joint-enterpr... https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/03/31/case-study-wayne-collins-played-no-active-role/ https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/03/31/case-study-... There are a bunch of these.
Sven7 11y ago
What is your solution?

gaius 11y ago

I'll tell you a true story a few years ago while I was supervising a training session for divers at the swimming pool, someone broke into a some of our lockers. He got away with phones, tablets, credit cards, cash. Stupid crime because we can remote-brick devices now, cancel credit cards, and the money he stole from my wallet was actually Mexican. Anyway, he was captured on CCTV inside the building and outside, but all you can tell from the footage, that the police showed me, was that he was a black guy about 6 feet tall, and that's it. So when people worry about the surveillance state I just smirk. None of it actually works in any useful way, it's all security theatre. Oh, wait, it is useful for extorting motorists who stray into an unmarked "bus lane", but that's about it.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>So when people worry about the surveillance state I just smirk. None of it actually works in any useful way, it's all security theatre. This was what I always suspected pre-Snowden: that the government simply wasn't capable of creating a system to effectively monitor all internet traffic because they didn't have the technical chops. Which, in, say, 2001, might have been true. Turned out all they needed was time and money and they had both and then once it was revealed that they could do it and actually do it rather well it came as a shock (to me, at least). Two years ago was a long time in camera and facial recognition technology.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > When it does happen, you'll barely notice it either. You'll wake up one day, read the news and discover that somebody was caught using facial recognition technology that the police has been using for a year and it only came out because some court docket had to be made public. The police is pretty open about the legal powers they have and the technology they use. And people have already been caught by facial recognition - the submitted article talks about it.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    Yeah, I just realized it was about more than human recognizers. The future arrived a little early. Hence the edit.

Shivetya 11y ago

and here I thought Atlanta was getting worrisome when they bragged about ten thousand crime/police cameras replete with statements "if you are not doing anything wrong". This is on top of all the license plate scanner equipped cars which likely one day will morph into scanning people with facial recognition software. They even secure private money to put more cameras in