Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police Are Testing Facial Recognition on Christmas Shoppers in London this Week (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

London's Metropolitan Police is testing its facial recognition technology in the capital this week. From a report: It's the seventh time the Metropolitan Police, the UK capital's police force, has trialled facial recognition in public. The technology has previously been used at large events, including Notting Hill Carnival in 2016 and 2017, and Remembrance Day services last year. This year, the technology is being used Monday and Tuesday of this week in Soho, Piccadilly Circus, and Leicester Square -- all major shopping areas in the heart of the city.

Cameras are fixed to lampposts or deployed on vans, and use software developed by Japanese firm NEC to measure the structure of passing faces. This scan is then compared to a database of police mugshots. The Met says a match via the software will prompt officers to examine the individual and decide whether or not to stop them. Posters will inform the public they're liable to be scanned while walking in certain areas, and the Met says anyone declining to be scanned "will not be viewed as suspicious."

45 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. That's a yikes from me dog. by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Glad to see the Brits haven't given up on the 1984 dystopia!

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  2. Honest question by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Does the UK have a presumption of innocence? Because I seem to recall that maybe it doesn't. And that changes that whole "viewed with suspicion" thing a lot.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Honest question by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Does the UK have a presumption of innocence? Because I seem to recall that maybe it doesn't. And that changes that whole "viewed with suspicion" thing a lot.

      You're probably thinking of France where (at least historically) you had to prove yourself innocent rather than be proven guilty. In the UK you are innocent until proven otherwise.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Honest question by ledow · · Score: 5, Informative

      The story misses out the nice bit: Literally 100% of the people stopped this year so far by facial recognition were false-positives and released without charge.

      Presumption of innocence only affects the courts. Arrest is a mechanism to detain people until you can ascertain if a crime occurred. Even *arrest* isn't subject to a presumption of innocence (you wouldn't slap cuffs on a presumed-innocent person).

      Certainly "you look like a guy we are after" (in whatever form - identity parade, cop thinking he recognises you from a poster, targeted facial recognition, etc.) isn't subject to a presumption of innocence in the manner you're referring to. It has nothing to do with the UK, specifically, either.

      Fact is, their facial recognition is useless (as is most facial recognition), so if anything all they're EVER doing with it is bothering "innocent" people and showing how useless their own tech is.

      *A cop needs to be able to stop you. Presumption of innocence cannot play a part in that. Yes, they can stop you for almost no reason (you look like the guy, or you have the same colour car). It's what they do AFTER that that matters. In the UK, that means they quickly look you up, realise you're not the guy on the database and you walk off. Or you refuse and walk off (they could arrest you but then they could be subject to a lot of problems regarding insufficient cause for arrest).

      One of the questions the dickheads that "advise" you what to say to a cop include is "Am I free to go?" It's not a bad question. It's about the only one that an innocent person is likely to ask (all that other refusing-to-co-operate shit is just going to get you arrested, even if that's "wrong").

      Arrest is detaining you until the situation is clear.
      A charge is alleging that you performed a particular and specific named criminal act.
      A conviction is when a judge agrees with the latter.

      Arrest may be a pain in the arse, but it's a tool that needs to be used. They have made literally zero proper arrests with this facial recognition stuff. They stopped a few people, confirmed their ID, let them go. They would get better results by just sticking a cop in a market and saying "Do you recognise anyone?"... likely they'll catch at least one person subject to a public-banning order, commonly arrested for shoplifting, or some known driving offence (getting into a car when the cop knows they are banned, etc.).

    3. Re: Honest question by bmimatt · · Score: 2

      Here you go, AC:

      https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/other-visa-categories/safety.html

    4. Re: Honest question by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      All countries go after criminal suspects. The US even finger prints innocent tourists who plan on spending money in their country. Allies and all. Some friendship.

      Citation where the Untied States GOVERNMENT is fingerprinting tourists please...

      I'm a US citizen and even I had to have my fingerprints scanned at Immigration coming back from Canada last week.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Honest question by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      " Literally 100% of the people stopped this year "

      Literally. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    6. Re: Honest question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do note however, that these are used along with the required picture to verify the person who was granted the visa is the person attempting to enter the USA

      Except where they are from a visa waiver country. Then they will be used for some other unspecified purpose.

      Also law enforcement use is only permitted access to this data to identify individuals using biometrics under strict controls.

      LOL. Are these the same strict controls that allow US law enforcement to go around shooting black men for minor traffic violations with impunity?

    7. Re:Honest question by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It depends.
      When the GCHQ and UK mil get interested then its full "van" time. A person is watched in shifts and all their data is collected on.
      Then the SAS has the right to move in.

      The police are now very political and have to do what they are "told" by political leaders. Political correctness and virtue signalling has reduced the ability to police.
      The wider UK police command structure is now very political aware and is held back from policing and getting results.
      Policing is now about allowing political leaders to win elections not keeping the community safe from crime.
      City crime could be stopped quickly but the politics to allow such searches again would have to be approved politically.
      Local and national politics hold back useful stop and search police powers. So crime is allowed to grow the way crime rates grow on the streets in some US cities.

      The UK has the full set of "rights" but walking on the streets with the tools for a crime is not a "right".
      Staying in the UK as an illegal migrant is not a "right".

      The police could stop crime but are held back. CCTV with facial recognition should help with tracking criminals and illegal migrants.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:Honest question by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      And you believe them?

      It sounds like more of a case of the authorities not wanting to lose face, so the claim success even in the case of failure.

      Catching criminals is really beside the point. Does it lower crime? If they news came out, and "criminals" were still turning up to the concerts, then maybe it goes to show that some people don't think of themselves as criminals, and the authorities have redefined criminals to be anyone caught by their system.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    9. Re: Honest question by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You folks really need to stop reading the tabloids, and follow up on the cases where officers have been jailed for such behavior. There is no such "impunity"

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    10. Re: Honest question by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't have to. You were likely asked and agreed to do so. Some of use Global Entry, and voluntarily do so to skip the long lines. But no American is required to.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re:Honest question by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      That's known as the "ledow shuffle".

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    12. Re:Honest question by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "Arrest is detaining you until the situation is clear"

      Maybe it's different in the UK, but arrest != detain in the US...
      https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    13. Re: Honest question by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The really noteworthy point here is when they do get jailed, it's widely reported because it is so unusual as to be newsworthy nationwide. I'd bet you can't list more than 10 convictions since 2010, even though several hundred get shot every year.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    14. Re: Honest question by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You make it sound as though some of those several hundred aren't justifiable shootings. If you can't do that, we won't be able to come to any agreeable position.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    15. Re: Honest question by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      Some aren't. I figured you were current enough with the news of the last year or two that I wouldn't have to present the cases. Here are a few:
      • Philando Castile
      • Antwon Rose
      • Walter Scott
      • Samuel DuBose
      • Deven Guilford
      • Darrius Stewart
      • O'Shae Terry
      • Jordan Edwards
      • Botham Jean

      That's probably enough to cover "some" in your request. Several of those were physically attacked by police and then killed. Only a few were even indicted. And I believe all these date from 2014 or later, so it's not like I even tried hard to find them, and there's more that I know about, I just don't have time to locate the data on them. There are a couple that are not 100% innocent in this list, but they arguably did nothing to deserve being shot. There's definitely something wrong when officers shoot first. Especially when there's no gun present. I'd even go so far as to say part of the problem is officers without partners being on duty. IMNSHO no officer should be out and about on duty without a partner. And they should be willing to call for assistance if needed, before things escalate due to police action.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  3. Lower crime rates than US cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is Why UK cities have lower crime rates. The police there are far more efficient.

    1. Re: Lower crime rates than US cities by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      British police DO seem to try a lot harder than American police to de-escalate situations & resolve them without bloodshed, and take immense pride in their ability to do it.

      American police see movies with lines like, "The terrorist has a hostage. What do you do? (bam!) Shoot the hostage to disorient the terrorist." and think, "Fuck YEAH!"

    2. Re: Lower crime rates than US cities by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      UK police don't typically worry if the person they just pulled over is packing a weapon. It's an entirely different confrontation.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re: Lower crime rates than US cities by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Guns aren't quite as pervasive, but it's not like the UK is some gun-free idyllic paradise. British *criminals* (esp. organized crime) have been pretty well armed since the 70s & 80s. It's more like, you'd never see British police responding to a suicidal person by shooting them dead for failing to comply immediately (or attacking them with a butter knife). British police are more patient... they'll secure the perimeter & go into 'siege' mode for a few days if necessary, because they know the person will *eventually* get hungry, tired, have to poop, whatever. American police aren't expected to *have* that kind of patience... and they really *should*.

      It's one thing to kill a suspect who presents an active danger to bystanders. It's another matter *entirely* to aggressively escalate the situation into a gun battle just because the police felt impatient, or felt "threatened" because they insisted upon PUTTING themselves directly INTO a situation THEY largely escalated into existence THEMSELVES instead of calmly digging in for a siege.

      In Britain, police who intentionally escalate a siege into a shootout are scrutinized, looked down upon, and seen as a danger to themselves and the public. In America, all that matters is, "was the LEO in danger *at that instant*, regardless of who escalated the confrontation to get there". In America, it's always the criminal's fault for triggering police action in the first place, regardless of outcome. British police are held to a higher standard of restraint, and are better-trained AT practicing restraint.

      That's not to say British police are all saints, or that all American police are gun-slinging alpha-male cowboys... but there are unquestionably different expectations for police behavior in the US & Britain. In the US, the only real standard a LEO has to meet to legally justify killing a suspect is, "did the officer feel endangered?" In Britain, impatiently escalating a confrontation into a shootout would probably be a career-ending screwup that, at best, would limit that officer to only UN-armed duties thereafter.

  4. Re:Good by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is how you secure a nation aganst extremist muslim terrorism. Dispatch the cucks and get on with securing the country. Churchill would have done it, too.

    Churchill was a great war time leader and is rightly commended for that, he was a terribly overhanded peace-time leader though and had more than a few negative characteristics. I've no doubt you're right and Churchill would have approved of this, but that doesn't make it right.

    Very few people want to live in an overbearing police state. I certainly wouldn't.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  5. Santa Claus Is Coming to Town by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    Given the ease with which people dressed in red suits that hide body shape (and gender) and with large amounts of white facial hair, can move about unnoticed at this time of year, it probably isn't the best time to test this technology out.

    Although that strategy could explain the reported 100% FAILURE rate that the system has produced.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Santa Claus Is Coming to Town by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Given the ease with which people dressed in red suits that hide body shape (and gender) and with large amounts of white facial hair, can move about unnoticed at this time of year, it probably isn't the best time to test this technology out.

      But that's Santa - you can trust Santa. It's the other guys you have to worry about.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Santa Claus Is Coming to Town by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      you can trust Santa.

      Obviously your city hasn't hosted the locust plague more commonly known as SantaCON. Pretty much the worst parts of the Bible with the addition of 100s of drunken Santas barfing all over everyone.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re: Santa Claus Is Coming to Town by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Although that strategy could explain the reported 100% FAILURE rate that the system has produced.

      lol. It flagged a total of 5 people, you ignorant jackass.

  6. 98% Failure Rate by fortythirteen · · Score: 1

    Stop and frisk has to be more successful

  7. 1984 and George Orwell were from the UK by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    So, why does it supersize anyone that they are so heavily monitored?

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    1. Re:1984 and George Orwell were from the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So why does it supper rise air neon that their sow heavily minotaur?

    2. Re:1984 and George Orwell were from the UK by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Once you accept the premise of a monarch, all other bets about self-ownership are off.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:1984 and George Orwell were from the UK by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      All bets are off. You don't own any part of yourself, especially after it becomes detached. Can you have your arm stuffed and mounted on the wall after it's been amputated? You are medical waste. Don't take that personally. The majority is okay with this. Just, you know, "decline to be scanned"

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. declining to be scanned by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    And this is possible how exactly?

    By staying inside your home I guess...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:declining to be scanned by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      And this is possible how exactly?

      By staying inside your home I guess...

      Walk around in a Guy Fawkes mask?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:declining to be scanned by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Walk around in a Guy Fawkes mask?

      Yes, maybe, but for more formal occasions, I would suggest something more subtle

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:declining to be scanned by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Walk around in a Guy Fawkes mask?

      Yes, maybe, but for more formal occasions, I would suggest something more subtle

      Only if it comes with a cigar.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:declining to be scanned by Misagon · · Score: 1

      I decline to be scanned, using a can of spray paint - at the camera.

      You promised not to view me as suspicious. So back off!

      BTW, I recommend Molotow Premium. Good coverage, dries in cold weather.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    5. Re:declining to be scanned by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's sold separately

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:declining to be scanned by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The areas been collected on could be a concert, a sport related event with tickets.
      The person would then expect to have to show their ticket and accept a bag search. Now with facial recognition.
      Such a location has the always had the right to not grant people entry.
      People just don't get to enter some private/property as criminals.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:declining to be scanned by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Public/private is irrelevant. My point is when you step outside, you are not *declining to be scanned*. Cameras are everywhere.

      And you can save your breath with that "private property" nonsense. It's a tiresome cliche that has no meaning here. When the owners act as an agent of the government we should put them under the same legal restraints.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:declining to be scanned by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The "UK" does not have "legal restraints" due to its past with Ireland and bank related crime.
      Powerful laws exist to stop criminals on the way to a crime and after they have done a crime.
      Tools of a crime found on person, getting ready to be part of crime.
      CCTV was used as part of the "ring of steel" going back to the 1990's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... so any "legal restraints" went away a long time ago in the UK.
      Now its just all about adding more images to a database to create a whilelist of mil, police, workers ID, people/students with a passport who are in the UK legally.
      Every face will get looked at for past crimes and connections to crime, illegal immigration.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Re:A watched society is a safe and orderly one by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re "accuracy" AC. When a nation adds in its passport, border in and out images, drivers license, work ID, Thats mil/gov ID photo, "approved" educational ID photo, educational visa ID photo the set of data has the needed "accuracy".
    Then add all the past criminal people who have been convicted. Thats more "accuracy" AC.

    The citizens left out of the data sets are people in the private sector with no educational, work, mil/police, transport ID.
    Thats the whitelist of approved people and a set of people who can be granted photo ID by their private sector employer.
    The next step is to add everyone of interest to the GCHQ, UK mil, police, SAS and other nations police/mil.
    Then the really interesting people who faked a reason to be in the UK legally but who got seen by the UK/US mi/security services in a war zone.
    Thats more "accuracy" AC.
    Police can then add their own intelligence gathered. Further real time "accuracy" AC
    The data sets have existed for years and years AC. So has the "surveillance cordon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... work and results from work with the UK police, mil, security services on real time digital images.
    Every vehicle registration, drivers face, passengers face in and out of London got collected on in real time for years.
    Now the tech is able to detect criminals and illegal migrants all over the UK as and when needed.

    Criminals need to rethink the "freedom" from police to go wondering around with the tools of crime.
    Police will have the gait, face, transport use, cell phone use collected. Voice prints too on any random communications attempted ;)
    What the police cant do as the tech is still too expensive, the GCHQ will support. Collect it all is now domestic and police networked.
    Illegal migrants have to avoid every attempt to create a work ID, the need for a new bank account with ID and avoid all CCTV :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Of course they would by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 2

    For anything concerning Big Brother Is Watching You, go to the UK. All the more so, with the current ascent of tribalism and xenophobia in that country: they have to have the means to find out whether or not people belong there.

  11. Re:"Open Borders" are Risky by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    You, sir, are full of ignorant prejudices.

  12. 1984 by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    " and the Met says anyone declining to be scanned "will not be viewed as suspicious"

    So, anyone in a burka will be given a cavity search?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  13. Re:"Open Borders" are Risky by quenda · · Score: 1

    For the yanks, it was a Winston Churchill reference.