|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 721,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+xJust to be clear, is this their answer when it specifically relates to SHPOs? Unless they have reason to believe the SHPO has been breached, then yes. The facial recognition cameras didn't give the police any additional powers.
|
|
|
|
|
Steadfast
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 1.4K
|
+xJust to be clear, is this their answer when it specifically relates to SHPOs? Is there a section in the SHPO that states something like "must produce electronic devices upon request"... if so, I see that as a bit of a catch 22. I was thinking today, however, at what point does facial recognition stops become harassment. If you are being stopped daily/ weekly/ monthly simply because your image is in the system and not because there is any evidence you have committed an offence AND have confirmed on X occasions along with PPU visits that you are abiding fully with you requirements - surely this is something more than an 'occasional' thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 454,
Visits: 5.5K
|
Just to be clear, is this their answer when it specifically relates to SHPOs?
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 721,
Visits: 5.3K
|
I asked Liberty about this and they replied that it comes under Stop and account, rather than stop and search. Which basically means you don't have to answer their questions and can just walk away. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/stop-and-account/
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 721,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+xJust to update you, the LFR cameras are out in Croydon again today, and yes, you are right, I was stopped again. Luckily this time, it was quicker than before. They escorted me to the back of a van, and although PNC was again down, they contacted Jigsaw who quickly identified that the phone in my possession was the same as registered with them, so I was able to go. All in all another 10/12 minutes of time wasted for both myself and the police present. https://www.south-wales.police.uk/police-forces/south-wales-police/areas/about-us/about-us/facial-recognition-technology/deployments-for-live-facial-recognition/https://news.met.police.uk/news/live-facial-recognition-used-in-croydon-478292https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/force-content/met/advice/lfr/deployment-records/lfr-deployment-grid.pdfI think it's important to document these things. The name and number of the officer who stopped you, their grounds for the stop (most important - must contain reasonable suspicion that the SHPO has been breached, not just to check you are complying), the time and date etc. Ideally get the officer to write it all down on paper for you and sign it. Check out the links above. Cardiff advertise their upcoming deployments of LFR. The Met only seem to document what happened after the event, although they say they communicate it in advance. Nevertheless, by analysing the data, patterns can be detected. A couple of things I noted. The numbers on the watchlist slowly growing, and the numbers of people stopped but not arrested, also increasing. If this is going to become a regular thing, then email Liberty and let them have your evidence, so they can build a case against the Met.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 454,
Visits: 5.5K
|
Absolute violation of your rights, in my book. I'd write to Chris Philp MP directly. The Tories want us to leave the ECHR but it seems like they're acting as if they already have.
=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
Bearders
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2,
Visits: 34
|
Just to update you, the LFR cameras are out in Croydon again today, and yes, you are right, I was stopped again.
Luckily this time, it was quicker than before. They escorted me to the back of a van, and although PNC was again down, they contacted Jigsaw who quickly identified that the phone in my possession was the same as registered with them, so I was able to go.
All in all another 10/12 minutes of time wasted for both myself and the police present.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 454,
Visits: 5.5K
|
To misquote Goldie Lookin' Chain... Knives don't kill people, people do.
It's not the what, it's the why, solve the 'why' and that's how you really keep people safe.
Anything can be used as a weapon, and if one thing is banned, it'll next be something else.
But us all being scanned yet again... the list is only going to get longer if you start down this route.
I wonder how far we are from: "Excuse me, sir, our scanners have picked up that you have three carrier bags and you've seen in the news that people who steal have three or more carrier bags. You only have two hands, don't you? So are you planning on stealing from shops?"
=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
Steadfast
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 1.4K
|
+xSlightly related, just heard Chris Philp MP (he's had about 10 different jobs in the last 5 minutes) talking about scanning us ALL "for knives" too, even though the majority of the country do not carry a knife, of course, but don't let the facts........ We’re going to be investing in new technology designed to scan for knives, scan people walking up and down the street, to identify where they’re carrying knives, that technology is about a year away from being deployable.
Once again, no permission is being sought. The "where" is interesting. It's not just a metal detector type of thing by the sounds of things, it sounds more like those new scanners at airports. While we're out shopping...! It's seemingly not stopping any time soon.
It's an odd one. I have no issue with using technology to keep people safe, the issues I have though is the speed that the rationale for the use of such technology gets 'spun' to allow for different uses. I mean, facial recognition to 'catch' wanted criminals, progresses to checking SO's are not in breach of conditions could easily turn into "We identified you don't have car insurance but are at a service station and wanted to make sure you haven't broken the law to drive here". Is there any difference really in the latter two? Anyway, back to knife scanners - the tech doesn't work: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65342798
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 454,
Visits: 5.5K
|
Slightly related, just heard Chris Philp MP (he's had about 10 different jobs in the last 5 minutes) talking about scanning us ALL "for knives" too, even though the majority of the country do not carry a knife, of course, but don't let the facts........ We’re going to be investing in new technology designed to scan for knives, scan people walking up and down the street, to identify where they’re carrying knives, that technology is about a year away from being deployable.
Once again, no permission is being sought. The "where" is interesting. It's not just a metal detector type of thing by the sounds of things, it sounds more like those new scanners at airports. While we're out shopping...! It's seemingly not stopping any time soon.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 721,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+xI have read this thread with some interest and thought I would use my first post here to tell you of my experience with the technology. I will say I am halfway through my 10 years on the SOR and also have a SHPO for the same period. Croydon deployed the LFR (Live Facial Recognition) for three consecutive Thursday's leading up to Christmas. They were deployed in different areas of the town centre over the three days they were used. On the middle of these three Thursday's, I walked into Croydon as usual to get some shopping and noticed the camera vehicle and also 2/3 police vans parked behind. I did not think anything of it, as I have complied entirely throughout and have nothing to hide. As I walked towards the vans, I noticed a movement in the officers on the street and three officers approached me. I could see from devices in their hands, that my picture had appeared on the screen. They asked for my name, and also for identification. I showed them my driving licence and one officer took this away to the van that had the cameras attached. The other two officers stayed with me, and asked me not to put hands in pockets etc. This was less than 5 minutes from my house, therefore I was very self conscious and anxious about the proximity to home and anyone that would recognise me. The officer returned with my driving licence and asked whether I had a mobile phone on me, to which I replied that I did. He then asked me to accompany him to the police van parked behind, and I was asked to take a seat in the van. He could see my conditions and he said that one of the conditions was not to have a device with access to the internet, I interjected and said that this was correct but this was only if not approved, which my phone was. I have had the phone for 3.5 years. He carried on and agreed that was correct. He took the IMEI number from the phone to check. Unfortunately they could not access the PNC, therefore could not establish whether the phone was legitimate. I do not think they knew what to do, therefore I suggested I call my Liaison Officer, who I have a good relationship with to clarify. They gave me back my phone to make the call but both his mobile number and the office number, went straight through to voicemail. The officer managed to get through to him through his radio, and the control centre, but he was not in a position to clarify the IMEI at that moment. Luckily I have monitoring software on my phone, therefore my Liaison Officer asked them to let me show them, to prove this was the phone. I did this and they were satisfied. I was in the van for around 20 minutes, along with the 10 minutes on the pavement. I must say all the officers were very pleasant, but my thought was that this technology was to find people who were wanted for crimes, or had warrants out for them. As mentioned I have complied throughout my time on the SOR, and had recently had my devices checked and my latest ARMS assessment done, which lowered my risk. I am now anxious that if this software is rolled out around the country, I could be stopped on many occasions and time wasted. It was reported that:- Officers from Croydon worked alongside the Met’s Territorial Support Group for the operation. “As a result of 22 alerts by the LFR technology, 10 people were arrested for offences including threats to kill, recall to prison for robbery and possession of an offensive weapon,” the Met said. There were another eight people stopped who are “subject to sexual prevention orders”. The police checked whether they “were complying with their conditions”. In its statement, the Met added: “A further four people who also had other court imposed conditions were identified correctly and their conditions checked. There were no false alerts.” What are peoples views on this? Am I right to be worried for the future, or do the positives outweigh the inconvenience? This is really worrying as I didn't believe facial recognition could be used like this unless there was a legitimate reason such as the offender had breached their registration requirement. I always believed the monitoring of SO's was done by the PPU team who are trained in handling this. The random stopping of SO's in a public place is worrying as it could lead to an offender being outed. I am sure the wider public won't see a problem with this but for those of us subject to registration it is problematic. It is difficult at times leading a normal life anyway without the worry that we could be randomly stopped. It's not legitimate. The College of Policing guidelines say they can add people to their watchlist, if they have an SHPO, or other civil order, but they must still have reasonable suspicion that the person has breached their SHPO, before they can do a stop.
|
|
|
|
|
Richie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 47,
Visits: 328
|
+xI have read this thread with some interest and thought I would use my first post here to tell you of my experience with the technology. I will say I am halfway through my 10 years on the SOR and also have a SHPO for the same period. Croydon deployed the LFR (Live Facial Recognition) for three consecutive Thursday's leading up to Christmas. They were deployed in different areas of the town centre over the three days they were used. On the middle of these three Thursday's, I walked into Croydon as usual to get some shopping and noticed the camera vehicle and also 2/3 police vans parked behind. I did not think anything of it, as I have complied entirely throughout and have nothing to hide. As I walked towards the vans, I noticed a movement in the officers on the street and three officers approached me. I could see from devices in their hands, that my picture had appeared on the screen. They asked for my name, and also for identification. I showed them my driving licence and one officer took this away to the van that had the cameras attached. The other two officers stayed with me, and asked me not to put hands in pockets etc. This was less than 5 minutes from my house, therefore I was very self conscious and anxious about the proximity to home and anyone that would recognise me. The officer returned with my driving licence and asked whether I had a mobile phone on me, to which I replied that I did. He then asked me to accompany him to the police van parked behind, and I was asked to take a seat in the van. He could see my conditions and he said that one of the conditions was not to have a device with access to the internet, I interjected and said that this was correct but this was only if not approved, which my phone was. I have had the phone for 3.5 years. He carried on and agreed that was correct. He took the IMEI number from the phone to check. Unfortunately they could not access the PNC, therefore could not establish whether the phone was legitimate. I do not think they knew what to do, therefore I suggested I call my Liaison Officer, who I have a good relationship with to clarify. They gave me back my phone to make the call but both his mobile number and the office number, went straight through to voicemail. The officer managed to get through to him through his radio, and the control centre, but he was not in a position to clarify the IMEI at that moment. Luckily I have monitoring software on my phone, therefore my Liaison Officer asked them to let me show them, to prove this was the phone. I did this and they were satisfied. I was in the van for around 20 minutes, along with the 10 minutes on the pavement. I must say all the officers were very pleasant, but my thought was that this technology was to find people who were wanted for crimes, or had warrants out for them. As mentioned I have complied throughout my time on the SOR, and had recently had my devices checked and my latest ARMS assessment done, which lowered my risk. I am now anxious that if this software is rolled out around the country, I could be stopped on many occasions and time wasted. It was reported that:- Officers from Croydon worked alongside the Met’s Territorial Support Group for the operation. “As a result of 22 alerts by the LFR technology, 10 people were arrested for offences including threats to kill, recall to prison for robbery and possession of an offensive weapon,” the Met said. There were another eight people stopped who are “subject to sexual prevention orders”. The police checked whether they “were complying with their conditions”. In its statement, the Met added: “A further four people who also had other court imposed conditions were identified correctly and their conditions checked. There were no false alerts.” What are peoples views on this? Am I right to be worried for the future, or do the positives outweigh the inconvenience? This is really worrying as I didn't believe facial recognition could be used like this unless there was a legitimate reason such as the offender had breached their registration requirement. I always believed the monitoring of SO's was done by the PPU team who are trained in handling this. The random stopping of SO's in a public place is worrying as it could lead to an offender being outed. I am sure the wider public won't see a problem with this but for those of us subject to registration it is problematic. It is difficult at times leading a normal life anyway without the worry that we could be randomly stopped.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 721,
Visits: 5.3K
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steadfast
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 1.4K
|
If they REALLY want to find someone, they will, and they do
A wee or so ago, near where my family live there was a serious violent attack on someone. It was filmed by one of the group and posted on social media. The group consisted of 8 people and social media (being social media) identified around four of them, and they had come from an area covered by CCTV, and again had been identified by CCTV. Police have arrested one person... one. Most of the hard work had been done for them.
Unfortunately policing is becoming lazy. And your point about them "wanting to find you" is pertinent. The number of 'unsolved crime' is ridiculous... and if this technology is genuinely used to catch serious offenders I have no issue with it. Stopping people who had previously committed a crime and been through the 'justice system' [and acting lawfull] is wholly wrong, and what rabbit holes could this end up going down?
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 454,
Visits: 5.5K
|
Thanks for sharing your story Bearders. It's important to document these real-life stories.
It throws up so many questions. If you went on all three Thursdays, would you have been stopped every. single. time? Especially unfair when someone they're actually looking for would only be stopped once.
If you were with others who didn't know about your order, does that put you at risk of everything blowing up again, just for the sake of a random 'check' and an unfortunately timed shopping trip. Where is the duty of care for you?
Might fear of being pulled aside increase isolation from avoiding going out at all. I've never been to Croydon, but I certainly won't be going there anytime soon now.
It's shocking really. Eight orders 'checked' and assuming no arrests, therefore, it's just more degrading 'what if' interference in our lives.
Our rights are becoming the victim of lazy policing. It suggests they have a load of unsolved crimes lying around and mass surveillance is how they solve that? If they REALLY want to find someone, they will, and they do.
This is all just another softening for a new 'normality' with no accountability. Ignorance is strength. It's not 2024, it's 1984.
=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 721,
Visits: 5.3K
|
https://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2023/12/rape-drugs-and-robbery-suspects-arrested-in-croydon-after-police-deploy-mobile-facial-recognition-vans/I've done a bit more reading on this. The above news report has some interesting quotes. "Croydon MPS announced on X on December 7 that they would be deploying LFR in various “key locations” across the borough, and it was in use to “find people who threaten or cause harm, those who are wanted, or have outstanding arrest warrants issued by the court.” Also if you look at the picture of the notice put up by the police, it states "police are using LFR to find people who are wanted by the police or the courts'. There is no mention of them checking to see that SO are complying with their SHPOs, so those officers were most likely exceeding their authority. "The LFR system contains a ‘watchlist’ of offenders. It is a carefully applied and overt policing tool to assist in locating a “limited number of people the police need to find in order to keep London safe”. Watchlist composition tends to be restricted to individuals suspected to be in the proximity of an area" We don't know if this bit is true or not. It may be that they only included SO who live in that area, on their watchlist, but its equally likely that the watchlist included the details of all SO. But what we do know, is that it was not simply a list of SO that the police "need to find". It also included people that they didn't need to find as well. That is something Liberty will be very interested in, I'm sure. .
|
|
|
|
|
Steadfast
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 1.4K
|
+x[quote]There were another eight people stopped who are “subject to sexual prevention orders”. The police checked whether they “were complying with their conditions”. I'm fairly sure that this is 100% political. Checking on people with no reason to suspect them of not abiding with their orders, and reporting it as they have almost legitimises the whole thing in the eyes of the wider public. If the officer who was 'checking' your compliance with your order, yet has no access to details of said order, how can that be a thing? I have many concerns, firstly what happens if you choose not to go with officers to their police van - what happens then? Secondly, if someone puts two & two together (even if it adds up to 5) and decides a person has previously been convicted of a SO and decides to cause further harm. Whose fault is that? Thirdly, what good is this actually doing? If you are subject to being pounced on by the police every time you go out - what will this do to a persons mental health? Will it not cause people to stay indoors more often? Does it not further erode the trust a former offender has with the police and ultimately increase potential risk? Fourthly, OM's working with groups who have been convicted of SO's have additional training and support uniformed police and others do not. They also have a more complete view of the facts of SO's and not the hyped up, news-educed view many others have. Should 'beat' cops be conducting such checks. Fifthly, I recall during my order my OM came in one day and asked if I would mind if she ran a NPR check on my car (basically to see which NPR cameras I had been passing). I said didn't... she had clearly done it already and after a few taps on her phone she had it. There was one road I had traveled fairly regularly she mentioned - she didn't ask why, but I volunteered that I had been supporting my grandparents in some light house tasks. My concern would be, will we get to a stage where reports will be compiled about day-to-day movements. If this is genuinely a concern, surely that's why there is the possibility of GPS tagging? Finally - is this not a waste of police time? Why randomly stop and check the on group of ex-offenders statistically unlikely to reoffend? As mentioned previously, I am sure they are simply using SO-hysteria to justify what they are doing. It's concerning.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 721,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+xI have read this thread with some interest and thought I would use my first post here to tell you of my experience with the technology. I will say I am halfway through my 10 years on the SOR and also have a SHPO for the same period. Croydon deployed the LFR (Live Facial Recognition) for three consecutive Thursday's leading up to Christmas. They were deployed in different areas of the town centre over the three days they were used. On the middle of these three Thursday's, I walked into Croydon as usual to get some shopping and noticed the camera vehicle and also 2/3 police vans parked behind. I did not think anything of it, as I have complied entirely throughout and have nothing to hide. As I walked towards the vans, I noticed a movement in the officers on the street and three officers approached me. I could see from devices in their hands, that my picture had appeared on the screen. They asked for my name, and also for identification. I showed them my driving licence and one officer took this away to the van that had the cameras attached. The other two officers stayed with me, and asked me not to put hands in pockets etc. This was less than 5 minutes from my house, therefore I was very self conscious and anxious about the proximity to home and anyone that would recognise me. The officer returned with my driving licence and asked whether I had a mobile phone on me, to which I replied that I did. He then asked me to accompany him to the police van parked behind, and I was asked to take a seat in the van. He could see my conditions and he said that one of the conditions was not to have a device with access to the internet, I interjected and said that this was correct but this was only if not approved, which my phone was. I have had the phone for 3.5 years. He carried on and agreed that was correct. He took the IMEI number from the phone to check. Unfortunately they could not access the PNC, therefore could not establish whether the phone was legitimate. I do not think they knew what to do, therefore I suggested I call my Liaison Officer, who I have a good relationship with to clarify. They gave me back my phone to make the call but both his mobile number and the office number, went straight through to voicemail. The officer managed to get through to him through his radio, and the control centre, but he was not in a position to clarify the IMEI at that moment. Luckily I have monitoring software on my phone, therefore my Liaison Officer asked them to let me show them, to prove this was the phone. I did this and they were satisfied. I was in the van for around 20 minutes, along with the 10 minutes on the pavement. I must say all the officers were very pleasant, but my thought was that this technology was to find people who were wanted for crimes, or had warrants out for them. As mentioned I have complied throughout my time on the SOR, and had recently had my devices checked and my latest ARMS assessment done, which lowered my risk. I am now anxious that if this software is rolled out around the country, I could be stopped on many occasions and time wasted. It was reported that:- Officers from Croydon worked alongside the Met’s Territorial Support Group for the operation. “As a result of 22 alerts by the LFR technology, 10 people were arrested for offences including threats to kill, recall to prison for robbery and possession of an offensive weapon,” the Met said. There were another eight people stopped who are “subject to sexual prevention orders”. The police checked whether they “were complying with their conditions”. In its statement, the Met added: “A further four people who also had other court imposed conditions were identified correctly and their conditions checked. There were no false alerts.” What are peoples views on this? Am I right to be worried for the future, or do the positives outweigh the inconvenience? Well, well. When I originally posted, this was the sort of scenario I had in mind, although I didn't think it was going to get to this stage for a few years. Random deployment, and not for any major event, just because it was xmas probably. Thanks for sharing this. Really useful. London and Cardiff are the two areas where they are using this technology most aggressively at the moment. But no doubt it will spread to other areas over time. In some ways, its not that different to stop and search, except they are targetting SO, rather than young black men. But it confirms that all SO are on the watchlist, not just those with outstanding arrest warrants against their name. That may well be a breach of their human right to privacy. I would be inclined to write to the civil rights organisation Liberty about your experience, or to Big Brother Watch, because there are civil right implications. To the best of my knowledge, a person can only be stopped if there is reasonable suspicion, and the only exception to that, is if there is a Section 60 notice in the area. However section 60 only applies to violent crime, so even section 60 would not permit a stop and search of this nature. If they saw you using your mobile phone, then that might give them grounds, but they didn't know you had a mobile until after they had stopped you, therefore. I would say it was an unlawful search and you should get compensation. Person of Interest - great TV show, now a reality. Liberty Human Rights Information Line 0800 988 8177 and selecting option 3 from the main menu (Monday evenings from 6pm to 8pm, Tuesday lunchtimes from 12pm to 2pm and Thursday evenings from 6pm to 8pm) https://hnksolicitors.com/news/what-are-my-police-stop-and-search-rights/
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
+xI have read this thread with some interest and thought I would use my first post here to tell you of my experience with the technology. I will say I am halfway through my 10 years on the SOR and also have a SHPO for the same period. Croydon deployed the LFR (Live Facial Recognition) for three consecutive Thursday's leading up to Christmas. They were deployed in different areas of the town centre over the three days they were used. On the middle of these three Thursday's, I walked into Croydon as usual to get some shopping and noticed the camera vehicle and also 2/3 police vans parked behind. I did not think anything of it, as I have complied entirely throughout and have nothing to hide. As I walked towards the vans, I noticed a movement in the officers on the street and three officers approached me. I could see from devices in their hands, that my picture had appeared on the screen. They asked for my name, and also for identification. I showed them my driving licence and one officer took this away to the van that had the cameras attached. The other two officers stayed with me, and asked me not to put hands in pockets etc. This was less than 5 minutes from my house, therefore I was very self conscious and anxious about the proximity to home and anyone that would recognise me. The officer returned with my driving licence and asked whether I had a mobile phone on me, to which I replied that I did. He then asked me to accompany him to the police van parked behind, and I was asked to take a seat in the van. He could see my conditions and he said that one of the conditions was not to have a device with access to the internet, I interjected and said that this was correct but this was only if not approved, which my phone was. I have had the phone for 3.5 years. He carried on and agreed that was correct. He took the IMEI number from the phone to check. Unfortunately they could not access the PNC, therefore could not establish whether the phone was legitimate. I do not think they knew what to do, therefore I suggested I call my Liaison Officer, who I have a good relationship with to clarify. They gave me back my phone to make the call but both his mobile number and the office number, went straight through to voicemail. The officer managed to get through to him through his radio, and the control centre, but he was not in a position to clarify the IMEI at that moment. Luckily I have monitoring software on my phone, therefore my Liaison Officer asked them to let me show them, to prove this was the phone. I did this and they were satisfied. I was in the van for around 20 minutes, along with the 10 minutes on the pavement. I must say all the officers were very pleasant, but my thought was that this technology was to find people who were wanted for crimes, or had warrants out for them. As mentioned I have complied throughout my time on the SOR, and had recently had my devices checked and my latest ARMS assessment done, which lowered my risk. I am now anxious that if this software is rolled out around the country, I could be stopped on many occasions and time wasted. It was reported that:- Officers from Croydon worked alongside the Met’s Territorial Support Group for the operation. “As a result of 22 alerts by the LFR technology, 10 people were arrested for offences including threats to kill, recall to prison for robbery and possession of an offensive weapon,” the Met said. There were another eight people stopped who are “subject to sexual prevention orders”. The police checked whether they “were complying with their conditions”. In its statement, the Met added: “A further four people who also had other court imposed conditions were identified correctly and their conditions checked. There were no false alerts.” What are peoples views on this? Am I right to be worried for the future, or do the positives outweigh the inconvenience? My view is that is utterly bonkers and I wouldn't blame you if you put a complaint in to that police dept. about it. Pleasant or not what was their reasoning for stopping/questioning you? Unless they're actively looking for you for some reason then I fail to see how it's anything other than abuse of power. My main question would be: "What were they hoping to find?" Unless you were talking about with drugs falling out your pocket or something then just because your face shows up on a screen doesn't warrant what appears to be essentially a stop and search.
|
|
|
|
|
JGUK68
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 17,
Visits: 15K
|
+xI have read this thread with some interest and thought I would use my first post here to tell you of my experience with the technology. I will say I am halfway through my 10 years on the SOR and also have a SHPO for the same period. Croydon deployed the LFR (Live Facial Recognition) for three consecutive Thursday's leading up to Christmas. They were deployed in different areas of the town centre over the three days they were used. On the middle of these three Thursday's, I walked into Croydon as usual to get some shopping and noticed the camera vehicle and also 2/3 police vans parked behind. I did not think anything of it, as I have complied entirely throughout and have nothing to hide. As I walked towards the vans, I noticed a movement in the officers on the street and three officers approached me. I could see from devices in their hands, that my picture had appeared on the screen. They asked for my name, and also for identification. I showed them my driving licence and one officer took this away to the van that had the cameras attached. The other two officers stayed with me, and asked me not to put hands in pockets etc. This was less than 5 minutes from my house, therefore I was very self conscious and anxious about the proximity to home and anyone that would recognise me. The officer returned with my driving licence and asked whether I had a mobile phone on me, to which I replied that I did. He then asked me to accompany him to the police van parked behind, and I was asked to take a seat in the van. He could see my conditions and he said that one of the conditions was not to have a device with access to the internet, I interjected and said that this was correct but this was only if not approved, which my phone was. I have had the phone for 3.5 years. He carried on and agreed that was correct. He took the IMEI number from the phone to check. Unfortunately they could not access the PNC, therefore could not establish whether the phone was legitimate. I do not think they knew what to do, therefore I suggested I call my Liaison Officer, who I have a good relationship with to clarify. They gave me back my phone to make the call but both his mobile number and the office number, went straight through to voicemail. The officer managed to get through to him through his radio, and the control centre, but he was not in a position to clarify the IMEI at that moment. Luckily I have monitoring software on my phone, therefore my Liaison Officer asked them to let me show them, to prove this was the phone. I did this and they were satisfied. I was in the van for around 20 minutes, along with the 10 minutes on the pavement. I must say all the officers were very pleasant, but my thought was that this technology was to find people who were wanted for crimes, or had warrants out for them. As mentioned I have complied throughout my time on the SOR, and had recently had my devices checked and my latest ARMS assessment done, which lowered my risk. I am now anxious that if this software is rolled out around the country, I could be stopped on many occasions and time wasted. It was reported that:- Officers from Croydon worked alongside the Met’s Territorial Support Group for the operation. “As a result of 22 alerts by the LFR technology, 10 people were arrested for offences including threats to kill, recall to prison for robbery and possession of an offensive weapon,” the Met said. There were another eight people stopped who are “subject to sexual prevention orders”. The police checked whether they “were complying with their conditions”. In its statement, the Met added: “A further four people who also had other court imposed conditions were identified correctly and their conditions checked. There were no false alerts.” What are peoples views on this? Am I right to be worried for the future, or do the positives outweigh the inconvenience? utterly annoying and very worrying. This could be a good reason for me to relocate abroad until my SHPO comes to an end
|
|
|
|