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.

Labels providing a means to an end. Sigh.

As you’ve suggested the actual reality of this being followed through is unlikely. Especially with SHPOs, I don’t recall hearing any ‘don’t go to gigs’ clauses. Or shall we meander down the ‘what if’ pathway when it comes to ‘contact’.

"There's been a lot of misunderstanding thinking that images are captured and kept - they're not," he said. "The only image that is retained is of an individual who's identified as being one of the people you're looking for."

The point is you have to have a specific reason to be looking for someone. If someone is wanted, why would they go to a Beyonce gig?! The atrocity in Manchester happened after the concert had ended and he didn't 'go to the gig' as it were. The fact is MI5 / police were too slow to act on that specific rare case, that doesn't give them carte blanche to squeeze another little privacy off us.

If you’re looking for someone who is already being monitored, as we know, they can be visited at any time, go visit them?! This makes no sense. This 80-year-old PCC is just bolting on another label to then later say 'it's normal' to do this. No, it's not normal, at all, liar. What is going to be "normal" next?

What is ‘sensible’ are the rules that already exist about usually under 14/16 or whatever must have an adult with them. I’ve never even heard of any kids being groomed at a gig or whatever and I’ve been to a lot of gigs in my time. The mentioning of Ariana Grande gig is tangential at best, a softening for the general public to blindly agree, but there's no substance here for yet more surveillance.

Two Qs I have, 1) what were the results of the Beyonce gig? For the price of everyone's privacy being violated, what was actually found? Nothing?

2) If my database picture has been shared without my consent and looked at by others (crass irony there), will it be removed when my time is up?

PS. Has anyone actually been told that their photo has been transferred to this new database? Even out of courtesy? Or even asked? I know I haven't.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

There is info out there on the following pages.

https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/2023/08/a-guide-to-facial-recognition-at-protests/
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/what-is-police-facial-recognition-and-how-do-we-stop-it/#page-section-4
https://www.college.police.uk/app/live-facial-recognition/watchlist
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fr/facial-recognition-technology/
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/10/29/police-use-of-facial-recognition-factsheet/

The watchlists appear to be compiled at relatively short notice, just 24 hrs before it is to be used, to ensure it contains current up to date images and so therefore it has a limited shelf life. After a while, the images on it become out of date and are no use anymore. As for whether they have to tell you, they have powers already to use your image on the PNC for any future investigations, along with your dna and fingerprints.

It seems like another thing they're just running with, even though that ruling from the Ed Bridges case seems pretty clear.

"All deployments must be for a policing purpose and be necessary, proportionate, and fair. "

 They will of course mark their own homework when it comes to this, I presume?

My mugshot and fingerprint was taken about a year after sentencing. I was given a few weeks to show up to have it done, so I grew a beard and changed my hair for it, haha. I didn't have any DNA taken either.
Coincidentally, I did ask the officer who was dealing with me that day why I'd all of a sudden been hauled in to get the photo done and if it was anything to do with a facial recognition database. It was kind of in jest but there had been something in the news about FR not long before. He said no. Hmm.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

So, no photo taken on the day of the knock then? Devices taken away but no arrest and no interview at the police station, prior to being charged?

Correct. Raided. No arrest, I did a voluntary interview but was told to no comment. I continued to work. I had the hope of a caution. Postal requisition arrived and it all hit the fan. I didn't have my mugshot until about a year after sentencing. Lucky in some respects because when I was in the paper, they couldn't get a picture because there wasn't one.
Is that not what usually happens?

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

I'm not punter99 but that's different from my experience.

Mine was a knock on the door, told why they were there (suspicion of images being downloaded at this address). I was arrested and taken to the police station while 2 (maybe 3? Can't fully remember) other officers ripped my house apart and seized computers and whatnot. At the station I was booked in, stuff from my pockets catalogued and put away somewhere etc. then I had my fingerprints taken, a swab inside my mouth and a couple of mug shots and then dumped in a cell for a few hours before being taken out for questioning.

For what it's worth, my mugshot was never in the paper, in fact my image was never shown at all by the news (social media is a different story).

I don't remember the exact sequence of events, but presume I must have been arrested at some point. A lot of the time, they are just fishing, because all they have to go on is an ip address and an allegation. They can still arrest you on suspicion before having found any images though and even though the interview is "voluntary", you can't refuse to go to the station with them, or else they will arrest you then.

I've just edited back my post because this thread is in the public area. Oops.

Bringing it back to the thread. Seemingly, they do seem to power on with ideas which are floated out there. Another point, imagine if you ping the facial recognition and you're with friends who don't know about your past and you incorrectly get pulled aside. I suppose like passport control. It'd just ruin your day for no reason whatsoever, you might then have to lie to explain why it happened etc. So many sledgehammers and walnuts.

Also this post on X with Dominic Cummings, is he talking about the facial recognition database?! I can't think of what else it could be off the top of my head.......

Also, I wouldn't be shocked if they brought in the name change ban idea, which would then quickly be "normal" before anyone has chance to challenge. And the ban would be justified by some copper because "tenuous rare story from years ago". I'd keep that in mind if anyone is considering it presently...


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

I don't think there is a facial recognition database in this country. China has one, but everybody in China has a digital id card, with their photo on, which we don't have.
But the danger is, that by merging together some of the existing databases, e.g. the PNC and the Passport or DVLA databases, you could create one.

It might not be named as such, but we effectively do have one because how else could they create the alleged temporary database used at the Beyonce gig? The fact they're doing it at all means the genie is out of the bottle, doesn't it? I haven't heard the rest of Dom's interview yet.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

It's not really a national database, as there are so many people who aren't on it. The PNC is effectively a database, and someone applied filters to extract terrorist suspects and people on the SOR. I'm sure it has happened before (remember, I'm a cynic) and this was just the first time they admitted it.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Yes, the main source for the watchlists is the PNC, but they can use other images too, including those scraped from social media. So if they were looking for someone who is wanted and who isn't on the PNC, they could add extra images to the watchlist, but not to the PNC.

The watchlists are not permanent databases, They are assembled shortly before the live facial recognition tech is deployed and destroyed shortly afterwards. But in future, that could change...

Facial recognition, in theory, is a great tool and in theory, I have no issues with it. The issue is with the regulation of it, and whether or not we can trust our authorities to use it in a way to benefit everyone. If someone has legal restrictions to stay away from an area, I feel that facial recognition could be a great tool to enforce this.  

Facial recognition could have a great benefit when it comes to things like ticketing for things like season passes, train ticketing etc. It would be easily enforceable and speed up processing of people and help maximise revenue.

The issue is the regulation of this data. For example there would need to be very specific time constraint on how long data would be stored, who could use such data and for what (ie. A train company could hold your data for the duration of your rail journey for the sole purpose of making sure you have paid your ticket). Equally, if it is to enforce the requirements of a court order, times need to be very specific and set down by law, and an independent third party responsible for the monitoring and reporting of data, with non-required data being deleted daily. But with governments etc. we know this would never happen - everything would be perpetual. 

There is already a ton of regulation around its use and South Wales police were found to be using it unlawfully, as they didn't comply with some of the regs.
But they have carried on using it anyway!

Hi
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




Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

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.
 

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

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.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.