Slashdot Mirror
The London Riots and Facial Recognition Technology
nonprofiteer writes "A bunch of vigilantes are organizing a Google Group dedicated to using recently revealed facial recognition tools to identify looters in the London riots. While Vancouver discussed doing something similar after the Stanley Cup riots, the city never actually moved forward on it. Ring of Steel London, though, is far more likely to incorporate FRT into its investigative work."
A related article points out how development of face-recognition technology has been kept under wraps by some organizations, but we're getting to the point where it'll soon be ubiquitous.
Could we find a more loaded term than that? I don't think so. Heaven forbid some folks actually try to glom together and do good.
Fuck off you racist piece of shit. There is no such word as "tolerasty" except as invented by European neo-Nazis so that they can pretend to be smart while treating blacks, Jews, gays, Muslims, and virtually everyone else as sub-human vandals in their precious homogenous society. It is a portmanteau of tolerant and pederast, created with the intention of implying that tolerant people condone pedophilia.
What is happening in London has nothing to do with "your colored cousins". I won't even bother arguing why, because frankly, you're a monster of the same sort that murdered all those children in Norway, and as such are impervious to reason. I wish only that you die before you hurt anyone, and that no one follow you down that road of hatred that you're on.
I'm only even responding so that people see you for what you are, and know to distrust your every word.
So, LA: lots of rioting, stores got looted. London: lots of rioting, stores got looted. Remind me again what gun control has to do with this?
[FUCK BETA]
And plenty of white faces in the riots. Nobody here on the ground can think that these are predominantly racial riots, but the white supremacists do seem to be trying to turn them into race riots.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
It's not a justification. It's an explanation. I don't say I think it's the right thing to do, nor do I say that I think they're justified. I explain why it is happening.
Btw, while we're at "seeing always the same", I always get to see the same reasoning why these people are "bad" and how they could better their lives. Short answer: They can't. Long answer... well, let's see. Allow me to hold this conversation that I held many times before. Often enough that I can probably also play your part.
"They needn't riot. They could get a job and work their way up"
No. First of all, would you give them a job? You're looking at someone from a bad neighborhood, loaded with prejudice and a general resentment against it. Immediately he's seen as lazy, not dependable and probably more interested in stealing your goods rather than selling them. In an economy where jobs are rare, these are the ones that can't get one. No matter how minimum the wage.
"Then they should go and learn something to be more qualified"
I don't know about your country, in mine, learning as an adult costs money. And they don't have money to spare.
"Then they should have learned something while they were still in school"
Have you ever been in a school in such a ghetto? Be glad if you speak their language, they won't speak yours. You're looking at classes where the mob rules. Try learning something and you won't really have a life worth living. Not only inside, but also outside your school. If you get out alive and with all your teeth, you really have a career going. As a boxer, not as a scientist, though.
"They already get everything for free, why are they complaining?"
Would that satisfy you? Knowing that you have to live from handouts because you're unable to afford your own life? Personally, it would frustrate me greatly. Also, look at what they get. A flat, usually too small for the amount of people cooped up in it, in a neighborhood where you better don't own anything worth being stolen, an education in schools where... see above and health care where you better don't have a job because you'd miss quite a few days of work for waiting alone. What people miss is that they see "oh, free", and consider the quality level equal to what they are paying for. Hint: It's not. Not by a longshot.
It is actually someone else's fault that they can't get out of this ghetto. It's insanely hard to claw your way out of this hell, and I dare say facing the same level of hardships, most people would do exactly the same.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nevertheless there is a significant number of people in this country who feel they have no voice - and that's not just those who resort to violence, but the hard working, law abiding too. Look at the way Blair ignored 1.5 million people turning up on his doorstep to protest going to war in Iraq. Look at the way there were thousands of students protesting tuition fees peacefully yet the media was dominated by the handful who decided to break things. If the people in power constantly refuse to acknowledge the voice of the masses (and people feel they have no real representation at the polls, when every party seems to have the same approach of empowering the powerful and taxing the poor and even the party they supported can volte face on their promises) then this is always going to be the end result sooner or later.
It doesn't legitimise their actions in any way, but it damn well helps to explain them. I see politician after politician on the news this week saying they can't understand why people would react this way - THAT is scary, it should be blindinly obvious why people are reacting this way and the politicians should be talking about how they deal with the factors that cause this reaction, not trying to blame it all on mindless yobs.
No, it doesn't help to explain them at all. Did 1.5 million people riot in London just because they were ignored? Nope. Because these were ordinary, civilized, and decent people.
The truth is, these rioters are hopeless waste-of-spaces that have no respect for anything or anyone, and are just looting and vandalizing for no reason other than "it's a bit of a laugh" or "I can get away with it, so why not". These really are the type of scum that you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.
Difference is, we don't need guns to defend our homes, because when the sort of criminals who resort to crimes like burglary don't have guns, why would we need them? Or what, do you also believe burglars in the US don't have guns, when they know home owners do?
Guns give an individual of any strength or gender at least an equal chance against criminals, typically stronger, younger, and more numerous males who have spent their whole lives learning to take and administer beatings. Unless you are trained you will lose against a street thug in physical combat--and even if you are you will lose against two of them. On the other hand, burglary is a very unprofitable crime so the average burglar is not armed since guns cost hundreds of dollars. Forfeiting your right to a gun means you are trusting your life to the grace of criminals (who are practical enough to retain all their rights).
Violence just perpetuates the hate used to drive these types of conflicts. Protesting only works when you actually protest for something and not just against something. You need more than empty slogans and rhetoric if you expect to really change anything. Look at the protests in the Egypt, the protesters were more than willing to organize to storm the barricades but once they achieved their goal of removing the person they felt was responsible for their misery they have reverted to fighting and arguing amongst themselves and have not accomplished anything to improve their society. The downtrodden masses in London or in any other country never accept that they themselves are partly responsible for their situation. Personal responsibility and the willingness to improve your own life plays a big part on the quality of life. The organized marches in DC during the fight for minority rights are a good example of how to achieve positive results using public protests. Throughout the country protesters and their supports were attacked violently and yet they still continued on with their cause until they were either killed, beaten down, or arrested. At the same time the leaders of these protests displayed both intelligence and competence that heled to demolish the stereotypes of that era. The protesters in the 60's knew exactly what they were protesting for which was equal protection and rights under the law and they achieved that goal without resorting to mindless violence. Had they done so they would have failed in their quest. Of course racial discrimination did not end overnight and it is still an ongoing struggle today but who could have even entertained the idea in the 1960's that the US would elect a black president? None of these efforts used to achieve this goal resulted from the type of violence and anarchy sweeping England or other countries today. The rioters in England have focused the public's attention on the violence instead of the underlying reasons they use to justify their violence.