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? :-)
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."
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?