'Facial Recognition Tech Mistook Me For Wanted Man' (bbc.co.uk)
- Reference: 0178596838
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/08/06/2227235/facial-recognition-tech-mistook-me-for-wanted-man
- Source link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxg8v74d8jo
> A man who is bringing a High Court challenge against the Metropolitan Police after live facial recognition technology [2]wrongly identified him as a suspect has described it as "stop and search on steroids." Shaun Thompson, 39, was stopped by police in February last year outside London Bridge Tube station. Privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch said the judicial review, due to be heard in January, was the first legal case of its kind against the "intrusive technology." The Met, which announced last week that it would double its live facial recognition technology (LFR) deployments, said it was removing hundreds of dangerous offenders and remained confident its use is lawful. LFR maps a person's unique facial features, and matches them against faces on watch-lists. [...]
>
> Mr Thompson said his experience of being stopped had been "intimidating" and "aggressive." "Every time I come past London Bridge, I think about that moment. Every single time." He described how he had been returning home from a shift in Croydon, south London, with the community group Street Fathers, which aims to protect young people from knife crime. As he passed a white van, he said police approached him and told him he was a wanted man. "When I asked what I was wanted for, they said, 'that's what we're here to find out'." He said officers asked him for his fingerprints, but he refused, and he was let go only after about 30 minutes, after showing them a photo of his passport.
>
> Mr Thompson says he is bringing the legal challenge because he is worried about the impact LFR could have on others, particularly if young people are misidentified. "I want structural change. This is not the way forward. This is like living in Minority Report," he said, referring to the science fiction film where technology is used to predict crimes before they're committed. "This is not the life I know. It's stop and search on steroids. "I can only imagine the kind of damage it could do to other people if it's making mistakes with me, someone who's doing work with the community."
Bruce66423 comments: "I suspect a payout of 10,000 pounds for each false match that is acted on would probably encourage more careful use, perhaps with a second payout of 100,000 pounds if the same person is victimized again."
[1] https://slashdot.org/~Bruce66423
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxg8v74d8jo
I was stopped two weeks ago... (Score:3)
I was waiting for a bus, and wasn't doing anything. In rapid order a police officer came on my quickly, asked me if I had any weapons, asked me my name, asked to look in my backpack, and wanted to see my ID. It was unnerving. I was just getting off work and thinking of what to make for dinner that night. It was out of the blue.
If it is "protect and serve", maybe police would start by saying why they are talking to me, first thing, instead of: "You got any weapons"? I never found out why, as my bus came, and he let me get on.
Maybe they could even politely introduce themselves before asking my name.
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA at least, you dont have to talk to them, or cooperate.4th amendment protects you against unlawful searches. 5th allows you to not talk to a cop if under suspicion. If its "cordial" you can tell them you dont want to talk.
Might they overreach? Sure. But use your rights or lose your rights.
Re: (Score:2)
> In the USA at least, you dont have to talk to them, or cooperate.4th amendment protects you against unlawful searches. 5th allows you to not talk to a cop if under suspicion. If its "cordial" you can tell them you dont want to talk. Might they overreach? Sure. But use your rights or lose your rights.
There is so much overreach entire sections of the constitution are being deleted and people are losing due process. Ideally the second amendment is supposed to protect you but I can guess how the encounter would go with just him and a pistol. Simply admitting you carry has caused them to panic attack at the drop of an acorn or less.
Re: (Score:1)
"More than 50 years ago, the iconic London Bridge was dismantled in England and reassembled brick by brick in the middle of the Arizona desert—now serving as the historic centerpiece of Lake Havasu City." Perhaps the poster is thinking that Tower Bridge is London Bridge, just like the nitwit who bought London Bridge and moved it to AZ.
Potentially faulty reasoning (Score:2)
> "I suspect a payout of 10,000 pounds for each false match that is acted on would probably encourage more careful use, perhaps with a second payout of 100,000 pounds if the same person is victimized again."
Why would an individual police officer give a shit about how much the taxpayers have to spent to fix his mistakes? The million dollar injury and death lawsuits all over America hasn't altered standard practice or reformed police departments here, is there something special about policing in the UK that it would work there?
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. There seems to be no personal accountability for the actions of a police officer, except you may pay more in taxes if he misbehaves. My understanding is that it is still a practice that if an officer (in the USA) is fired for misconduct in one area, that he can just get another police job in another area. There is no background checks, or accountability for the individual police officer. At least there should be that, a National Database.
Guilty until proven innocent (Score:2)
This has been going on as long as there have been police and some agenda to exact justice without good police work to properly identify the suspect. The CIA ramped up suspected terrorists with its rendition programs in 2001 using common world wide names of people who were not only innocent but if released alive, became enemies of the US simply because of the way they were treated. Now with facial recognition stepping in its going to get a whole lot worse. With more people being scooped up by unmarked office
Re: (Score:2)
Is it 6 unmarked people in unmarked vehicles with weapons that are secret police or is it 6 unmarked people in unmarked vehicles using the first as cover to abduct you and sell you or end you any number of ways? You have 2 seconds to decide. It’s going to come to a gunfight and then the military will be brought in to crush the uprising.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so while police messed up here, I don't think this incident supports the notion that we are "guilty until proven innocent."
The man was released when he showed his ID, after all. He was not charged with anything. Police only held him as long as they did because he was uncooperative.
Sure, mistakes happen. But that doesn't prove that justice has gone down the toilet.
Flawed strategy (Score:2)
This man refused to provide fingerprints. What was the point of that? Did he think he would gain the trust of the police by being uncooperative? If he had let them take his fingerprints, he would have probably been released sooner. As soon as he demonstrated his real identity, they let him go. The "stop and frisk on steroids" was brought on by his own actions.
If you have a beef with facial recognition, being uncooperative when police pick you up, won't do you any favors. A better strategy would be to fully
Oh. Who could possibly have predicted. (Score:2)
Imagine if you could just look at the way this is set up and see that the police both have an incentive and a level of indemnity that allows them to harass people and believe they're doing the right thing in the process, best case.