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.
Reminds me: Somewhere on the internet is a description of how to build an anti-camera cap. Basically a baseball cap with a battery, and a row of powerful IR emitters along the rim. It utilizes that most security cameras can see into the IR, so the camera will gain down and leave the face in darkness, or at least distort it enough to nullify automated face recognition. Can be used during transport, where wearing a cap is not as suspicious as covering the face. ... Or will it soon be so that anyone not instantly recognized will automatically be a suspect? :-)
Inflation is 4% for the rich, and 40% for the poor - might have a bearing on it. Plus the fact that the banks and insurance companies, utilities, etc are allowed to thieve from poor people while the government makes statements about "disapproving" but does not actually stop them, and the police keep being caught lying and cheating..
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
I just spent an evening embedded with indie journalists in Manchester. It's definitely at least two-thirds white.
And there's more to it than "mindless violence" too. The train station here, just a few hundred metres from one main flashpoint (Piccadilly Gardens), it fucking immaculate. I was in there at 5am this morning insisting that Network Rail put in an official statement to that effect. I hope they do.
They said themselves that last time there was disorder in Manchester (caused by a certain Scottish football team) Piccadilly Train Station was, to put it bluntly, completely ruined.
I saw all kinds of colours and themes of clothing; wierdos with cameras being ignored in favour of fasion shop windows. Most people stood around to bolster numbers, and those smashing windows are NOT those looting. The looters come after, and the are primarily white trash but I saw one Asian guy who was abusive to our photographers taking a whole glass shop counter in a van using a trolley.
"It's mine. You got a problem with that?"
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
You people without a perspective and treated as second class citizens do not accept the state as their institution. They perceive the state as their enemy. [..] People get even more suppressed (at least they feel that way) which can erupt at any time.
slightly off-topic. this msnbc blog entry shows some interesting insight in the dynamics of the group:
a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."
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]
"Seriously officer, this guy had a knife and he forced me to steal this big screen TV that is in my living room. I was going to return it after the riots were over!"
Mod parent up. When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence. This isn't violence with a direct aim - e.g. as the violence by the US in the Middle East is subjugation of strategically important areas - this is violence as a way of saying "I'm fed up and someone to take notice!" If you loved your society, you wouldn't destroy it. If, as a young man (or teen, it seems), you do not feel a sense of belonging and love and support - if you are not given the opportunity to contribute - then why would you value what is around you?
The looters coming in after the riots are being emphasised because it's pretty hard to argue about the social plight of someone who runs off with a 42 inch TV "because I can". There is a massive PR exercise to paint this as merely thieves thieving. There's also a PC exercise to avoid pointing out the cultural make-up of rioters - predominantly black in some areas, white in others - because people are so afraid of thinking they're implying "black people are criminals!" rather than "youths in black communities in central London are alienated and have no voice, no meaningful representation and no opportunity to do anything about it". We have moved on from overt police racism of the '80s (and well done to the police for doing that) but we have not moved on from the power dominance of a single culture in Britain.
Unfortunately, in any class struggle (sorry, Torys, that's exactly what it is!), these sorts of organic riots tend to result in more oppression. It may do something to raise awareness, but absent an organised army it is only joint peaceful action which tends to effect change. In particular, had the unions not been so far up New Labour's arse over the last decade that the wider working population would be forgiven for remembering who they were created to serve, they would have opposed changing market and labour conditions.
In short, it still takes a village to raise a child. Even the most stable and loving family (which, as anyone knows, inner London is full of) can only do so much. When the average boy turns 16 - and we're not talking about the geniuses of the world, but the majority of average ability - society has the choice to lift him up or to leave him to fend on his own. Where resources exceed demand, he might be able to do the latter. Where they do not, what should he endure? And, if you have not helped him, what gives you the right to tell him what is right and wrong? Even if you think you have some natural superiority, what makes you think the young man will listen?
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.
Why on earth would your beliefs be in any way relevant? Are you aware that the machine in front of you allows you to search for information so that you can test your beliefs. Shocking, eh?
The key point of the definition is that a vigilante takes extra-legal action; a vigilante is one who acts outside of the existing legal framework. Publishing the identity of the looters is not operating outside of the law. In fact it actually supports the official effort to identify looters from video shot during the riots. Only acting on the identities to go and mete out some kind of illegal retribution would be vigilante action, and as there is no suggestion that they will do so the use of the word is loaded as the GP originally stated.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
That's an indictment of the press, nothing more.
I live in Clapham Junction about 100m from the center of the riots there. I was down there there watching. Most of the kids (and they were kids) were having a great time, throwing bottle and having a laugh - I didn't see anyone I'd describe as angry.
All night people were wandering up my street stashing loot in rubbish bins, then coming back later to collect and load into cars that were doing the rounds. Nice cars, bit boy-racerish for me but not cheap. The ones that were seen "stealing milk and baby clothes" were no more significant than the ones stealing shampoo - there are cases of it on my street - and I suspect they were just a little late to the party. A friends sister saw her neighbours kids walking home with a TV each - a 2 bedroom house on that street will go for £400,000.
Yes, there's undoubtedly some alienation but there bigger problem is the unwarranted sense of entitlement - "I deserve a TV", "I'm getting my taxes back". As a genuine guardian reading, hand-wringing socialist leftie I didn't see a great deal of urban alienation on display, but I did see a great deal of self-absorbed greed.
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.
Yeah because of course our cops do that don't they, they open up on crowds. Oh wait no they don't, in fact they've not to this point even deployed baton rounds, or water cannons.
It's only a matter of time. Wish I were wrong, don't think I am. Time will tell.
I'm fucking glad we don't have your retarded gun nuttery, because for all the benefits you think it gives you, all you've really got to show for it are a whole bunch of pretty fucking embrassing crime statistics.
First of all, our retarded gun nuttery is your retarded gun nuttery, because we inherited it from you. You have simply outlawed it, with the effect that only criminals have guns. Second, gun crime has been waning in the USA in spite of generally permissive firearms laws. The only kind of gun crime which is actually on the rise in the USA is suicide. Suicide is on the rise pretty much everywhere, and we just happen to have guns to do it with. Aside from making things messier, this is really not a problem. So while gun suicide is on the rise, gun deaths are falling overall, suggesting that we have a handle on the problem.
But keep telling yourself your country is perfect, and you're so incredibly free, and that Britain is so much worse.
Nah, the USA and Britain are just two sides on the same die. On the other hand, your culture is provably less free than ours. I mean fuck, the truth is not a defense in a libel case? How are you not seriously more fucked up than the USA?
Anyway, one more thing upon which time will tell; your country is totally played out. You're out of natural resources and useful allies. All there is left is to fight each other for the scraps. Without projecting imperialism as the USA is doing you have no future except as just another soon-to-be-homogenized member of the EU. That's a good thing for the world but not for your quality of life.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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).