By JASB - 15 Dec 23 11:24 AM
+x+x+x+xHi Personally I like to assume that as with most things announced by those in "authority", the "principle of the purpose/tool" is or could possibly be, designed to be proactive towards deterring crime! In other words to persuade the majority of "society" protection is being installed to ensure they are safe. Remember a lot of people think crime dramas are 100% factual! In regard to the use at "gigs", there may of been facial recognition software / cameras there but the resourcing and computing power required to view and match and so act immediately if an offender is "matched" is enormous. The simple question would be "do they have the resources available" to act? Concider as well that if a known or unknown offender was inclined to attend on of these events "with" the intention to offend, would they not wear some form of disguise; especially as it is now being published? Just the article being inserted into the mainstream media it is able to achieve the aims of the "authorities": (1) show society they are focused on crime, (2) creating concern amongst any who is considering either offending or re-offending. Remember the software used in the latest "mission Impossible" film is not at that stage! Yet that is lol The technology works and it can match faces to those on the database in real time. So they do have the resources for individual operations, but the fact that it has only been deployed at certain events so far, suggests that it is still too difficult to roll out nationwide. However, if it were integrated into the network of CCTV cameras that already exist, then the potential to create a system like that in the TV series, 'Person of Interest' would be there. I've no doubt that is where they are trying to get to. And you are right that having such a system, even in limited form, does act as a deterrent, but mostly it only deters those who would be at no risk of committing offences anyway. The people who are determined to offend will still try to beat the system. Hi The tech may work in matching to a dbase in real time in a "limited test environment" but I would be interested in seeing it work in a "real environment" under load and stress conditions. For example the internet connectivity would have to be perfect not to create a "time lag". I would also suggest; at the present moment, that the time it takes to scan, read, match an individual of interest, there would be a strong case to suggest that the individual would have moved on; if not left. Therefore you have the dilemma of an OM visiting the individual with a "likeness" to question them. I think; as I mentioned if the individual was of an opinion to offend they would of use some disguise, so the authorities "may" have issues proving the identity? I do take your point but my case is that rather than feel ashamed to go to a gig with no aims of committing an offence, be aware of the scenarios that could arise and enjoy it. Not sure what you mean by a real environment. It has been used out on the streets, at large scale events, in both London and South Wales and some people have already been spotted as a result. Internet connectivity rarely an issue these days in an urban area and I imagine the speed is pretty quick. They have a camera van, just like the ones they use for speed cameras, but presumably also a team of people on the ground, who can pursue a suspect. But even that's not the case, they still have a backup, which is to visit the person at home, at a later date and confront them with the evidence. "You were at this location at this time, you have breached your SHPO, you're nicked!" As for disguises, it measures the distance between points on peoples faces, such as the distance between the nose and the chin. So without a full face covering, its not easy to fool, although there probably are ways to do it.
Hi
There are test (contained) and real (open to interference) environments.
With budgets as they are you are not going to get "hollywood" tech at every corner or event.
You are 100% correct on the follow up point but as I mentioned, disguises can be attempted. Not all photos will be crystal daylight clear as even in my disco days the rooms where dark, smokey had light effects etc.
The only point I am trying to highlight is we should not stress on what we can't control.
If you are allowed and not aiming to offend, enjoy your life.
However if you are aiming to offend then you deserve all the actions taken against you.
As an ex-offender our issue is balancing our actions to ensure our own well beings against the suspicion of some.
|
By AB2014 - 21 Dec 23 9:12 AM
+x+x+x+x+xHi Personally I like to assume that as with most things announced by those in "authority", the "principle of the purpose/tool" is or could possibly be, designed to be proactive towards deterring crime! In other words to persuade the majority of "society" protection is being installed to ensure they are safe. Remember a lot of people think crime dramas are 100% factual! In regard to the use at "gigs", there may of been facial recognition software / cameras there but the resourcing and computing power required to view and match and so act immediately if an offender is "matched" is enormous. The simple question would be "do they have the resources available" to act? Concider as well that if a known or unknown offender was inclined to attend on of these events "with" the intention to offend, would they not wear some form of disguise; especially as it is now being published? Just the article being inserted into the mainstream media it is able to achieve the aims of the "authorities": (1) show society they are focused on crime, (2) creating concern amongst any who is considering either offending or re-offending. Remember the software used in the latest "mission Impossible" film is not at that stage! Yet that is lol The technology works and it can match faces to those on the database in real time. So they do have the resources for individual operations, but the fact that it has only been deployed at certain events so far, suggests that it is still too difficult to roll out nationwide. However, if it were integrated into the network of CCTV cameras that already exist, then the potential to create a system like that in the TV series, 'Person of Interest' would be there. I've no doubt that is where they are trying to get to. And you are right that having such a system, even in limited form, does act as a deterrent, but mostly it only deters those who would be at no risk of committing offences anyway. The people who are determined to offend will still try to beat the system. Hi The tech may work in matching to a dbase in real time in a "limited test environment" but I would be interested in seeing it work in a "real environment" under load and stress conditions. For example the internet connectivity would have to be perfect not to create a "time lag". I would also suggest; at the present moment, that the time it takes to scan, read, match an individual of interest, there would be a strong case to suggest that the individual would have moved on; if not left. Therefore you have the dilemma of an OM visiting the individual with a "likeness" to question them. I think; as I mentioned if the individual was of an opinion to offend they would of use some disguise, so the authorities "may" have issues proving the identity? I do take your point but my case is that rather than feel ashamed to go to a gig with no aims of committing an offence, be aware of the scenarios that could arise and enjoy it. Not sure what you mean by a real environment. It has been used out on the streets, at large scale events, in both London and South Wales and some people have already been spotted as a result. Internet connectivity rarely an issue these days in an urban area and I imagine the speed is pretty quick. They have a camera van, just like the ones they use for speed cameras, but presumably also a team of people on the ground, who can pursue a suspect. But even that's not the case, they still have a backup, which is to visit the person at home, at a later date and confront them with the evidence. "You were at this location at this time, you have breached your SHPO, you're nicked!" As for disguises, it measures the distance between points on peoples faces, such as the distance between the nose and the chin. So without a full face covering, its not easy to fool, although there probably are ways to do it. Hi There are test (contained) and real (open to interference) environments. With budgets as they are you are not going to get "hollywood" tech at every corner or event. You are 100% correct on the follow up point but as I mentioned, disguises can be attempted. Not all photos will be crystal daylight clear as even in my disco days the rooms where dark, smokey had light effects etc. The only point I am trying to highlight is we should not stress on what we can't control. If you are allowed and not aiming to offend, enjoy your life. However if you are aiming to offend then you deserve all the actions taken against you. As an ex-offender our issue is balancing our actions to ensure our own well beings against the suspicion of some.
I don't know if any of you are aware of this. GB News is reporting it as well, but their page is crawling with adverts.
|
By JASB - 21 Dec 23 2:48 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+xHi Personally I like to assume that as with most things announced by those in "authority", the "principle of the purpose/tool" is or could possibly be, designed to be proactive towards deterring crime! In other words to persuade the majority of "society" protection is being installed to ensure they are safe. Remember a lot of people think crime dramas are 100% factual! In regard to the use at "gigs", there may of been facial recognition software / cameras there but the resourcing and computing power required to view and match and so act immediately if an offender is "matched" is enormous. The simple question would be "do they have the resources available" to act? Concider as well that if a known or unknown offender was inclined to attend on of these events "with" the intention to offend, would they not wear some form of disguise; especially as it is now being published? Just the article being inserted into the mainstream media it is able to achieve the aims of the "authorities": (1) show society they are focused on crime, (2) creating concern amongst any who is considering either offending or re-offending. Remember the software used in the latest "mission Impossible" film is not at that stage! Yet that is lol The technology works and it can match faces to those on the database in real time. So they do have the resources for individual operations, but the fact that it has only been deployed at certain events so far, suggests that it is still too difficult to roll out nationwide. However, if it were integrated into the network of CCTV cameras that already exist, then the potential to create a system like that in the TV series, 'Person of Interest' would be there. I've no doubt that is where they are trying to get to. And you are right that having such a system, even in limited form, does act as a deterrent, but mostly it only deters those who would be at no risk of committing offences anyway. The people who are determined to offend will still try to beat the system. Hi The tech may work in matching to a dbase in real time in a "limited test environment" but I would be interested in seeing it work in a "real environment" under load and stress conditions. For example the internet connectivity would have to be perfect not to create a "time lag". I would also suggest; at the present moment, that the time it takes to scan, read, match an individual of interest, there would be a strong case to suggest that the individual would have moved on; if not left. Therefore you have the dilemma of an OM visiting the individual with a "likeness" to question them. I think; as I mentioned if the individual was of an opinion to offend they would of use some disguise, so the authorities "may" have issues proving the identity? I do take your point but my case is that rather than feel ashamed to go to a gig with no aims of committing an offence, be aware of the scenarios that could arise and enjoy it. Not sure what you mean by a real environment. It has been used out on the streets, at large scale events, in both London and South Wales and some people have already been spotted as a result. Internet connectivity rarely an issue these days in an urban area and I imagine the speed is pretty quick. They have a camera van, just like the ones they use for speed cameras, but presumably also a team of people on the ground, who can pursue a suspect. But even that's not the case, they still have a backup, which is to visit the person at home, at a later date and confront them with the evidence. "You were at this location at this time, you have breached your SHPO, you're nicked!" As for disguises, it measures the distance between points on peoples faces, such as the distance between the nose and the chin. So without a full face covering, its not easy to fool, although there probably are ways to do it. Hi There are test (contained) and real (open to interference) environments. With budgets as they are you are not going to get "hollywood" tech at every corner or event. You are 100% correct on the follow up point but as I mentioned, disguises can be attempted. Not all photos will be crystal daylight clear as even in my disco days the rooms where dark, smokey had light effects etc. The only point I am trying to highlight is we should not stress on what we can't control. If you are allowed and not aiming to offend, enjoy your life. However if you are aiming to offend then you deserve all the actions taken against you. As an ex-offender our issue is balancing our actions to ensure our own well beings against the suspicion of some. I don't know if any of you are aware of this. GB News is reporting it as well, but their page is crawling with adverts.
Hi
One of the beauties of this Forum is in the simple fact we all see things that others may not see; so no I hadn't and thank you.
A positive aspect is that the story has /is approaching this the "checks" on everyone not SO specifically. This does enable our shock/outrage to be concealed within that of a larger group and not as most times, directed. Obviously as time goes on if the outrage increases the JS will probably highlight offenders or sex offenders to gain support.
I live in a block of flats and once I opened my door to about 4 officers in their protective gear. quite disturbing.
When i asked what they want they said they were looking for someone and was he with me? I said I didn't know the individual and why did they think he was with me? They wanted to come in but I asked if they had a warrant, which was no and they did not reply when I asked if they had searched the other flats. I again repeated no to both the individual and their search.
I contacted my OM to inform him of the facts and asked why the approach in this manner. I also stressed that if they had been more civil I would of allowed one to come in to show I was stating the truth.
The simple reason for their approach was because at that time a "dealer" was living with a female in a flat (waiting for eviction) they could see my record and took a default assumption not individual reality view of me i.e. my being involved with him becuase I was an EX Offender!!!
All this facial recognition and releasing names to appeal for anyone to come forward is just part of their process of:- Persauding society they are on their side and understand their concerns;
- Present an illusion of their capabilities e.g. are the same as "hollywood";
- but also to put doubt of success in the mind of the offender.
I do not doubt these sort of "tools" will become more efficient and powerful for them' and I said before "only those wishing to offend" should become paranoid over them.
As a civil liberties matter I would be at the front changeling this, as an ex offender I have to take a cautionary approach so not to be focused / highlighted by the supporters of this!
|
By punter99 - 21 Dec 23 3:27 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+xHi Personally I like to assume that as with most things announced by those in "authority", the "principle of the purpose/tool" is or could possibly be, designed to be proactive towards deterring crime! In other words to persuade the majority of "society" protection is being installed to ensure they are safe. Remember a lot of people think crime dramas are 100% factual! In regard to the use at "gigs", there may of been facial recognition software / cameras there but the resourcing and computing power required to view and match and so act immediately if an offender is "matched" is enormous. The simple question would be "do they have the resources available" to act? Concider as well that if a known or unknown offender was inclined to attend on of these events "with" the intention to offend, would they not wear some form of disguise; especially as it is now being published? Just the article being inserted into the mainstream media it is able to achieve the aims of the "authorities": (1) show society they are focused on crime, (2) creating concern amongst any who is considering either offending or re-offending. Remember the software used in the latest "mission Impossible" film is not at that stage! Yet that is lol The technology works and it can match faces to those on the database in real time. So they do have the resources for individual operations, but the fact that it has only been deployed at certain events so far, suggests that it is still too difficult to roll out nationwide. However, if it were integrated into the network of CCTV cameras that already exist, then the potential to create a system like that in the TV series, 'Person of Interest' would be there. I've no doubt that is where they are trying to get to. And you are right that having such a system, even in limited form, does act as a deterrent, but mostly it only deters those who would be at no risk of committing offences anyway. The people who are determined to offend will still try to beat the system. Hi The tech may work in matching to a dbase in real time in a "limited test environment" but I would be interested in seeing it work in a "real environment" under load and stress conditions. For example the internet connectivity would have to be perfect not to create a "time lag". I would also suggest; at the present moment, that the time it takes to scan, read, match an individual of interest, there would be a strong case to suggest that the individual would have moved on; if not left. Therefore you have the dilemma of an OM visiting the individual with a "likeness" to question them. I think; as I mentioned if the individual was of an opinion to offend they would of use some disguise, so the authorities "may" have issues proving the identity? I do take your point but my case is that rather than feel ashamed to go to a gig with no aims of committing an offence, be aware of the scenarios that could arise and enjoy it. Not sure what you mean by a real environment. It has been used out on the streets, at large scale events, in both London and South Wales and some people have already been spotted as a result. Internet connectivity rarely an issue these days in an urban area and I imagine the speed is pretty quick. They have a camera van, just like the ones they use for speed cameras, but presumably also a team of people on the ground, who can pursue a suspect. But even that's not the case, they still have a backup, which is to visit the person at home, at a later date and confront them with the evidence. "You were at this location at this time, you have breached your SHPO, you're nicked!" As for disguises, it measures the distance between points on peoples faces, such as the distance between the nose and the chin. So without a full face covering, its not easy to fool, although there probably are ways to do it. Hi There are test (contained) and real (open to interference) environments. With budgets as they are you are not going to get "hollywood" tech at every corner or event. You are 100% correct on the follow up point but as I mentioned, disguises can be attempted. Not all photos will be crystal daylight clear as even in my disco days the rooms where dark, smokey had light effects etc. The only point I am trying to highlight is we should not stress on what we can't control. If you are allowed and not aiming to offend, enjoy your life. However if you are aiming to offend then you deserve all the actions taken against you. As an ex-offender our issue is balancing our actions to ensure our own well beings against the suspicion of some. I don't know if any of you are aware of this. GB News is reporting it as well, but their page is crawling with adverts.
It's an imperfect solution, as not everyone has a driving licence and the police need up to date photos, whereas the DVLA ones are often many years old. But still worrying.
On JASB's point, about only those who are intending to re-offend should be concerned, I don't agree. It's the way in which SO are always under suspicion which can lead to people being accused of having done something, just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Something which he has illustrated very well, with an example from his own experience.
|
By JASB - 25 Dec 23 10:50 AM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHi Personally I like to assume that as with most things announced by those in "authority", the "principle of the purpose/tool" is or could possibly be, designed to be proactive towards deterring crime! In other words to persuade the majority of "society" protection is being installed to ensure they are safe. Remember a lot of people think crime dramas are 100% factual! In regard to the use at "gigs", there may of been facial recognition software / cameras there but the resourcing and computing power required to view and match and so act immediately if an offender is "matched" is enormous. The simple question would be "do they have the resources available" to act? Concider as well that if a known or unknown offender was inclined to attend on of these events "with" the intention to offend, would they not wear some form of disguise; especially as it is now being published? Just the article being inserted into the mainstream media it is able to achieve the aims of the "authorities": (1) show society they are focused on crime, (2) creating concern amongst any who is considering either offending or re-offending. Remember the software used in the latest "mission Impossible" film is not at that stage! Yet that is lol The technology works and it can match faces to those on the database in real time. So they do have the resources for individual operations, but the fact that it has only been deployed at certain events so far, suggests that it is still too difficult to roll out nationwide. However, if it were integrated into the network of CCTV cameras that already exist, then the potential to create a system like that in the TV series, 'Person of Interest' would be there. I've no doubt that is where they are trying to get to. And you are right that having such a system, even in limited form, does act as a deterrent, but mostly it only deters those who would be at no risk of committing offences anyway. The people who are determined to offend will still try to beat the system. Hi The tech may work in matching to a dbase in real time in a "limited test environment" but I would be interested in seeing it work in a "real environment" under load and stress conditions. For example the internet connectivity would have to be perfect not to create a "time lag". I would also suggest; at the present moment, that the time it takes to scan, read, match an individual of interest, there would be a strong case to suggest that the individual would have moved on; if not left. Therefore you have the dilemma of an OM visiting the individual with a "likeness" to question them. I think; as I mentioned if the individual was of an opinion to offend they would of use some disguise, so the authorities "may" have issues proving the identity? I do take your point but my case is that rather than feel ashamed to go to a gig with no aims of committing an offence, be aware of the scenarios that could arise and enjoy it. Not sure what you mean by a real environment. It has been used out on the streets, at large scale events, in both London and South Wales and some people have already been spotted as a result. Internet connectivity rarely an issue these days in an urban area and I imagine the speed is pretty quick. They have a camera van, just like the ones they use for speed cameras, but presumably also a team of people on the ground, who can pursue a suspect. But even that's not the case, they still have a backup, which is to visit the person at home, at a later date and confront them with the evidence. "You were at this location at this time, you have breached your SHPO, you're nicked!" As for disguises, it measures the distance between points on peoples faces, such as the distance between the nose and the chin. So without a full face covering, its not easy to fool, although there probably are ways to do it. Hi There are test (contained) and real (open to interference) environments. With budgets as they are you are not going to get "hollywood" tech at every corner or event. You are 100% correct on the follow up point but as I mentioned, disguises can be attempted. Not all photos will be crystal daylight clear as even in my disco days the rooms where dark, smokey had light effects etc. The only point I am trying to highlight is we should not stress on what we can't control. If you are allowed and not aiming to offend, enjoy your life. However if you are aiming to offend then you deserve all the actions taken against you. As an ex-offender our issue is balancing our actions to ensure our own well beings against the suspicion of some. I don't know if any of you are aware of this. GB News is reporting it as well, but their page is crawling with adverts. It's an imperfect solution, as not everyone has a driving licence and the police need up to date photos, whereas the DVLA ones are often many years old. But still worrying. On JASB's point, about only those who are intending to re-offend should be concerned, I don't agree. It's the way in which SO are always under suspicion which can lead to people being accused of having done something, just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Something which he has illustrated very well, with an example from his own experience.
Hi Punter99
First happy festive times and I hope you make the best of whatever you are doing my friend.
I do not disagree with the point of "wrong place wrong time" but I am just trying to encourage all that we should not let external pressures deviate from our aims. In a way this pressure can be like that saying about "you don't think about elephants until someone asks you if you are "
We all faced high levels of suspicion at first but our self focus on "rehabilitation" hopefully develops some creditability (not trust) in us by our monitors over time. Then if something happens and the gaze goes towards you just maybe it will be easier to deflect.
It is all about self belief and focus on our own aims. If you are asked about being somewhere and you have good reason to be there be strong as it is only our "shame" resurfacing.
As discussed many time in the past, there is nothing we can do about the thoughts of others as they are out of our control.
Be Happy.
|
By Bearders - 4 Jan 24 12:47 PM
I 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?
|
By JGUK68 - 4 Jan 24 6:12 PM
+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
|
By khafka - 5 Jan 24 3:47 AM
+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.
|
By punter99 - 5 Jan 24 11:04 AM
+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/
|
By Steadfast - 5 Jan 24 3:32 PM
+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.
|
By punter99 - 6 Jan 24 11:16 AM
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. .
|
By Mr W - 6 Jan 24 5:35 PM
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.
|
By Steadfast - 6 Jan 24 6:53 PM
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?
|
By punter99 - 8 Jan 24 11:09 AM
There is a petition you can sign.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-the-met-police-using-facial-recognition-surveillance
|
By Richie - 11 Jan 24 8:52 PM
+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.
|
By punter99 - 13 Jan 24 10:59 AM
+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.
|
By Mr W - 15 Jan 24 6:55 PM
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.
|
By Steadfast - 16 Jan 24 9:41 AM
+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
|
By Mr W - 16 Jan 24 3:19 PM
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?"
|
By Bearders - 23 Jan 24 1:47 PM
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.
|
By Mr W - 23 Jan 24 6:15 PM
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.
|
By punter99 - 24 Jan 24 11:00 AM
+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-478292
https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/force-content/met/advice/lfr/deployment-records/lfr-deployment-grid.pdf
I 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.
|
By punter99 - 25 Jan 24 10:36 AM
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/
|
By Mr W - 25 Jan 24 2:52 PM
Just to be clear, is this their answer when it specifically relates to SHPOs?
|
By Steadfast - 25 Jan 24 4:30 PM
+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?
|
By punter99 - 9 Nov 23 11:01 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67360696
A rather worrying development. At a recent Beyonce gig, the police used facial recognition tech to scan the crowd. The logic of doing this, after the Ariana Grande concert, would appear to make sense, but they have expanded the list of potential suspects to include people on the SOR, as well as terrorists.
The PCC, Alun Michael said this:
"The view beforehand was that a watchlist should consist of two sets of individuals," he told MPs."People known to be involved in extremism and terrorism in the light of the Manchester arena bombing - and secondly of paedophiles, because there would be very large numbers of young girls attending that concert."
It's worth noting that the scan does not include everyone on the PNC, it only includes people that are part of a predetermined watchlist. They did not scan the crowd for known drug dealers for example. So how did they select those people for the watchlist? Since its not possible to tell who is a P word and who isn't, because that info is not held anywhere on the police databases, then they must have been using a database of people selected from the PNC who met other criteria.
That raises some more questions. Was everyone on the SOR part of that watchlist, or was it certain offences only? Were they only seeking people who are wanted by the police, e.g. those who were on the SOR but have disappeared, or was it anyone with an SHPO, or was it anyone with an SHPO, who has contact restrictions in their SHPO?
My gut feeling is that they just searched for anyone on the SOR, because they think we are all the same, but would it be people who are currently on the SOR, or anyone who has ever been on the SOR, even if they have now come off it?
There are a lot of unanswered questions. The most concerning of which is what do they do, if they get a match? Do they go in to the gig and arrest the person, or do they wait til afterwards and visit them at home? Do they check the persons SHPO first, to see if they are in breach, because those with online offences only should not have any restrictions on going to gigs (although some will do).
The only comforting thing about this, is that only a handful of high profile gigs are currently being spied on, but the potential for this to be expanded does exist. It's not hard to imagine a time when all gigs will be routinely scanned for people on the SOR. Then they might expand it to include other places where young people congregate, such as cinemas. That will gradually lead to more social isolation, as people will be scared to go anywhere, just in case the venue is being secretly spied on by the police.
|
By punter99 - 26 Jan 24 2:55 PM
+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.
|
|