Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Facial recognition technology could 'damage the very fabric of a free society'.

 

Date - 9th September 2018
By - JJ Hutber- Police Oracle

 

Campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into police blacklisting of protesters and whistleblowers in an official review into state sanctioned monitoring of the public.

Big Brother Watch's State of Surveillance report, published on Friday, was highly critical of police surveillance, use of technology and monitoring of political activists.

UK police treat legitimate campaigners in a “similar way to their response to organised criminal network”, the document argued- labelling demonstrators as “domestic extremists”, filming protests and routinely monitoring social media.

“Campaigners have also said they believe surveillance is intentionally divisive, calling attention to those who are allegedly ‘aggressive’ or whom the police want to isolate or alienate from other protesters,” the report adds.

“This fear that police surveillance is concerned less with actual criminal behaviour and more with disruption based on subjective political judgements is fuelled by the way the police have claimed a broad and diverse range of campaigners are 'domestic extremists'.

“This label has no basis in law and its definition has changed often since it appeared in 2004.”

Big Brother Watch (BBW) wants a public inquiry to “tease apart the links between the various people involved in blacklisting” and called the judge-led Undercover Policing inquiry, which is not expected to report until 2023, a “disaster”.

Major concerns were also raised about police use of surveillance technology such as facial recognition cameras.

BBW is worried it is being used to compile data on protest groups and allows police to photograph activists without a suspicion of involvement in crime.

“The rapid emergence of new surveillance technologies is being matched by their fast and often lawless adoption by private companies and the state.

“Police forces can watch and track citizens without suspicion, increasingly using algorithms fed with personal information and data scraped from the internet to construct 'suspicion', assert 'risk', or even predict crime.

“Facial recognition cameras have crept onto our streets, making border style security and frequent identity checks a norm.”

The focus on public monitoring is having a “chilling effect” on the freedom to protest and has shifted policing priorities from negotiation to intelligence gathering, BBW said.

“Much debate on privacy and the gathering and retention of data remains overwhelmingly focused on individual rights.

“This overlooks the additional negative impact of surveillance when applied to an entire group, and an entire democratic mechanism.

“The excessive surveillance of activists inhibits collective discussion, decision-making and organisation, which are fundamental to the ability of campaigners to exercise their rights to protest effectively,” the report says.

Two separate legal challenges (against South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police Service) were launched this summer claiming facial recognition cameras breach the human rights of everyone within range and data protection laws.

But weeks later MPS Commissioner Cressida Dick told the London Assembly Police and Crime Panel she is “very comfortable” with the technology and trusts her officers’ judgement.

Figures revealed in response to Freedom of Information requests by Big Brother Watch have shown that, for the Metropolitan Police, 98 per cent of "matches" found by the technology were wrong, and for South Wales Police the figure was 91 per cent.

Police Oracle has contacted the National Police Chiefs’ Council for comment.

View On Police Oracle

[Mac7 808]

BBW sound like a bunch of paranoid so and so’s. Do campaign groups like this actual believe what they are reporting? Why does this get any kind of air time.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

BBW sound like a bunch of paranoid so and so’s. Do campaign groups like this actual believe what they are reporting? Why does this get any kind of air time.

I guess the Gestapo, Stasi and KGB all started somewhere. I feel more comfortable in a society where such things can be questioned and challenged, rather than one where these people would have disappeared overnight.

[Mac7 808]

I’ve skim read some of their reports and website. Most of what they report seems to have no evidence base and is stuck in the past. It seems to be born out of over heightened speculation influenced by dramatised TV programmes and conspiracy theories.

 

[Beaker 817]

BBW sound like a bunch of paranoid so and so’s. Do campaign groups like this actual believe what they are reporting? Why does this get any kind of air time.

BBW sounds like something off a dating site.

[Billy Blue Tac 170]

1 hour ago, Reasonable Man said:

I guess the Gestapo, Stasi and KGB all started somewhere. I feel more comfortable in a society where such things can be questioned and challenged, rather than one where these people would have disappeared overnight.

Not sure if this is tongue in cheek or a classic example of Godwin's Law. Surely you are not comparing properly authorised directed surveillance operations with the activities of totalitarian states?

 

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

Not sure if this is tongue in cheek or a classic example of Godwin's Law. Surely you are not comparing properly authorised directed surveillance operations with the activities of totalitarian states?
 

They didn’t start as totalitarian states, they developed into them. We start off with ‘reasonable’ infringements of our liberty that are lawful and sold to us as being in the interests of everyone. Those laws restrict or ban contrary political opinion and so we end up with only one option for government.
But then - it would never happen here. Would it?

[Mac7 808]

They didn’t start as totalitarian states, they developed into them. We start off with ‘reasonable’ infringements of our liberty that are lawful and sold to us as being in the interests of everyone. Those laws restrict or ban contrary political opinion and so we end up with only one option for government.
But then - it would never happen here. Would it?

I take it you’ve never worked in this area or are basing your opinions on the “good ol’days” when surveillance authorities were probably written on the back of a fag packet?

Authorities under RIPA have the highest level of scrutiny not just internally within the police but also externally. Even organisations such as Liberty recognise the need for surveillance.

[Sceptre + 2,701]

59 minutes ago, Reasonable Man said:

They didn’t start as totalitarian states, they developed into them. We start off with ‘reasonable’ infringements of our liberty that are lawful and sold to us as being in the interests of everyone. Those laws restrict or ban contrary political opinion and so we end up with only one option for government.
But then - it would never happen here. Would it?

I should hope we can set some store in our independent judiciary and strong human rights laws to prevent that, rather than relying on ragtag bands of tinfoil hat extremists to protect us. 

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

I take it you’ve never worked in this area or are basing your opinions on the “good ol’days” when surveillance authorities were probably written on the back of a fag packet?

Authorities under RIPA have the highest level of scrutiny not just internally within the police but also externally. Even organisations such as Liberty recognise the need for surveillance.

Very closely with RIPA until relatively recently. So I know the level of scrutiny required, currently - long may it continue.

I should hope we can set some store in our independent judiciary and strong human rights laws to prevent that, rather than relying on ragtag bands of tinfoil hat extremists to protect us. 

We can at the moment - but things can and do change unless there is freedom of expression and speech that can keep these things in check. When the attitude becomes ‘shut up you conspiracy theory loonies. Our government will only do things to protect us.’ Then the government has carte blanche to do what it likes.

[Mac7 808]

We can at the moment - but things can and do change unless there is freedom of expression and speech that can keep these things in check. When the attitude becomes ‘shut up you conspiracy theory loonies. Our government will only do things to protect us.’ Then the government has carte blanche to do what it likes.

That’s my point. It’s apparent from their website and so called reports that they don’t really know what they are taking about. They are expressing nonsense with no evidence base.