Jump to content

Orwellian or not...thoughts..


Walker570
 Share

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Rookandrabbit said:

REMOVAL OF HEADGEAR WORN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS: section 60 Public Order Act.

 

Many people customarily cover their heads or faces for religious reasons - for example, Muslim women, Sikh men, Sikh or Hindu women, or Rastafarian men or women. A police officer cannot order the removal of a head or face covering except where there is REASON to believe that the item is being worn by the individual wholly or mainly for the purpose of DISGUISING IDENTITY, not simply because it disguises identity.

 

Out of curiosity, how would any officer know the REASON isn't for DISGUISING IDENTITY, when they have absolutely zero idea who is wearing said facial covering?

Surley if one person DISGUISING their IDENTITY is stopped, then all disgusting their identity should be stopped, regardless of their presumed religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

About 10 years ago I attended a defence and security expo in London where a company were showcasing surveillance that monitors the way people in a crowd behave pinpointing those who are exhibiting abnormal behaviour. With the advances in AI and ML I'm sure those systems could be of huge benefit today (and I believe they may already be routinely deployed at large events). Imagine how the outcome might have been different if such a system had been deployed, with the infrastructure available to act upon it, in the foyer of the Manchester Arena on that day, for example.

I can see both sides of the argument on the notion of nothing to fear but as the general guiding principle I think it holds and we should be able to trust that it will be upheld within the society that we are fortunate enough to live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

About 10 years ago I attended a defence and security expo in London where a company were showcasing surveillance that monitors the way people in a crowd behave pinpointing those who are exhibiting abnormal behaviour. With the advances in AI and ML I'm sure those systems could be of huge benefit today (and I believe they may already be routinely deployed at large events). Imagine how the outcome might have been different if such a system had been deployed, with the infrastructure available to act upon it, in the foyer of the Manchester Arena on that day, for example.

I can see both sides of the argument on the notion of nothing to fear but as the general guiding principle I think it holds and we should be able to trust that it will be upheld within the society that we are fortunate enough to live in.

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rookandrabbit said:

If you have a modern drivers licence, fac , shotgun cert , passport, mod ranges pass, you are already there on the data base .

I do appreciate the range and depth of information available to the authorities and unless living completely off grid it really can't be avoided.  What I do object to is the amount of information and data that is shared beyond the advised scope of the technology.

Take for example CCTV systems in town centre that were intended for the prevention and detection of crimes.  Those systems eventually found themselves being used by council offers for things like wheelie bin infringements or multiple occupancy infringements in local authority housing.

You might of course believe that sort of thing should reasonably be stopped and the use of 24hr surveillance systems is appropriate to do that.  There are also recorded incidences of the same CCTV system being used to look into people's bedrooms or other intrusions into personal space.

I genuinely struggle to understand why so many seem so willing to actively cede their personal freedoms and privacy under the guise of public safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

About 10 years ago I attended a defence and security expo in London where a company were showcasing surveillance that monitors the way people in a crowd behave pinpointing those who are exhibiting abnormal behaviour. With the advances in AI and ML I'm sure those systems could be of huge benefit today (and I believe they may already be routinely deployed at large events). Imagine how the outcome might have been different if such a system had been deployed, with the infrastructure available to act upon it, in the foyer of the Manchester Arena on that day, for example.

I can see both sides of the argument on the notion of nothing to fear but as the general guiding principle I think it holds and we should be able to trust that it will be upheld within the society that we are fortunate enough to live in.

Instead of cameras and students of body language, why not use sniffer dogs at these events and  other susceptible  areas.. Or both !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I do appreciate the range and depth of information available to the authorities and unless living completely off grid it really can't be avoided.  What I do object to is the amount of information and data that is shared beyond the advised scope of the technology.

Take for example CCTV systems in town centre that were intended for the prevention and detection of crimes.  Those systems eventually found themselves being used by council offers for things like wheelie bin infringements or multiple occupancy infringements in local authority housing.

You might of course believe that sort of thing should reasonably be stopped and the use of 24hr surveillance systems is appropriate to do that.  There are also recorded incidences of the same CCTV system being used to look into people's bedrooms or other intrusions into personal space.

I genuinely struggle to understand why so many seem so willing to actively cede their personal freedoms and privacy under the guise of public safety.

I am happy for my image to be captured on a system while in the town centre, I am happy that my likeness is stored for later use, I am happy that the system might just deter someone or lead to an arrest as I have not done anything recently that I need to hide from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, islandgun said:

Instead of cameras and students of body language, why not use sniffer dogs at these events and  other susceptible  areas.. Or both !

I don't know. I would imagine the scaling and logistics issues of physical presence could be prohibitive - computing power and data storage in comparison is cheaper and tending towards infinite in comparison to physical resources, but like I say, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat I promise but just echoing what some of the other posters have said, it's not as simple as 'nothing to hide' etc - facial recognition could easily be used nefariously. Just off the top of my head; adverts and political campaigns can be targeted based on whether you were seen going into Aldi or Waitrose, your insurance gets jacked up for regularly being out in bad areas etc

And that's not even covering how useful this information would be to criminals, who seem to regularly harvest large amounts of data.

I think it has it's place for things like scanning sporting events and marches etc for known troublemakers but there has to be control and good reason for doing so, which to my mind means not ubiquitous on every lamp post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Mighty Prawn said:

I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat I promise but just echoing what some of the other posters have said, it's not as simple as 'nothing to hide' etc - facial recognition could easily be used nefariously. Just off the top of my head; adverts and political campaigns can be targeted based on whether you were seen going into Aldi or Waitrose, your insurance gets jacked up for regularly being out in bad areas etc

And that's not even covering how useful this information would be to criminals, who seem to regularly harvest large amounts of data.

I think it has it's place for things like scanning sporting events and marches etc for known troublemakers but there has to be control and good reason for doing so, which to my mind means not ubiquitous on every lamp post.

What would be the difference politically between someone who shops at Aldi and someone who shops at Waitrose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, "

Note the use of the word' 'apparatus'. Anyone who's ever watched those old war movies where they come down the train demanding 'papers!' knows what old Winston was talking about. But these days they wouldn't need papers. There's CCTV, inter-departmental government computerization, internet tracks that can be pulled up and cross referenced at the click of a mouse in a moment.... the list goes on and on. The Gestapo would have given their eye-teeth to have had access to the kind of personal intrusion that we, nowadays, regard as perfectly normal and acceptable.

You can't help feeling that one day this 'apparatus' that we're only to happy with might not seem so benign.

Edited by Retsdon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, grrclark said:

I do appreciate the range and depth of information available to the authorities and unless living completely off grid it really can't be avoided.  What I do object to is the amount of information and data that is shared beyond the advised scope of the technology.

Take for example CCTV systems in town centre that were intended for the prevention and detection of crimes.  Those systems eventually found themselves being used by council offers for things like wheelie bin infringements or multiple occupancy infringements in local authority housing.

You might of course believe that sort of thing should reasonably be stopped and the use of 24hr surveillance systems is appropriate to do that.  There are also recorded incidences of the same CCTV system being used to look into people's bedrooms or other intrusions into personal space.

I genuinely struggle to understand why so many seem so willing to actively cede their personal freedoms and privacy under the guise of public safety.

I too struggle to comprehend why people seem so readily agreeable to surrender their freedoms.

Sadly, again IMHO the next tiny step towards a rogue state where only freedom relates to a position of power.

The powers that be, should, maybe realise that they only govern because the majority enable them to by conforming to law. This could be enhanced if the powers robustly addressed the real individuals and their crimes instead of rolling out the usual rafts of meaningless twaddle that uselessly inconvenience the majority to no effect on the problem?

39 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, "

Note the use of the word' 'apparatus'. Anyone who's ever watched those old war movies where they come down the train demanding 'papers!' knows what old Winston was talking about. But these days they wouldn't need papers. There's CCTV, inter-departmental government computerization, internet tracks that can be pulled up and cross referenced at the click of a mouse in a moment.... the list goes on and on. The Gestapo would have given their eye-teeth to have had access to the kind of personal intrusion that we, nowadays, regard as perfectly normal and acceptable.

You can't help feeling that one day this 'apparatus' that we're only to happy with might not seem so benign.

The Stasi of old seemed to excel with just a pencil and paper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stumfelter said:

What would be the difference politically between someone who shops at Aldi and someone who shops at Waitrose?

That sort of info is massively useful as a tool to determine someones socio-economic details, you can then target them with the sort of issues likely to be high on their priorities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, The Mighty Prawn said:

That sort of info is massively useful as a tool to determine someones socio-economic details, you can then target them with the sort of issues likely to be high on their priorities

Like saving money or showing off to your friends!

Edited by TIGHTCHOKE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I am happy for my image to be captured on a system while in the town centre, I am happy that my likeness is stored for later use, I am happy that the system might just deter someone or lead to an arrest as I have not done anything recently that I need to hide from.

Dave, in principle there is nothing wrong with any of that for so long as the people with access to the data think the same as you.

Regrettably I don't think that is the case any longer, when we are now in reality at a point in time that someone calling a genetic and fully intact sexually capable male "he" can be investigated by the police and potentially prosecuted for a hate crime because that man wishes to be known as "she" then I think that we have strayed off the track of reasonableness.

Without derailing this thread too much, if you are even denied the opportunity to suggest a physical and genetic male with genitalia still intact should not be able to self identify as a woman and go into women only spaces without you being called a transphobe, a biggot and promoting hate are you really happy with the concept of omnipotent surveillance?

That is the reality of what it means.  Let's suggest you make a comment similar to what i have outlined on PW, which would to any reasonable person be a reasonable and challenging statement, then a few weeks later you are in the local city centre when there is a demonstration by some radical types that is nothing at all to do with you, you just happen to be there; however good old facial recognition flags up your name as a participant, there is Dave who promotes intolerant transphobia online, he is at a radical march.

 Knock, knock, knock......   'Good evening sir, we have reason to consider that you are not a fit and proper person to be in possession of firearms, our evidence is your online hate speech and attendance at a rally promoting hatred and intolerance ....."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Dave, in principle there is nothing wrong with any of that for so long as the people with access to the data think the same as you.

Regrettably I don't think that is the case any longer, when we are now in reality at a point in time that someone calling a genetic and fully intact sexually capable male "he" can be investigated by the police and potentially prosecuted for a hate crime because that man wishes to be known as "she" then I think that we have strayed off the track of reasonableness.

Without derailing this thread too much, if you are even denied the opportunity to suggest a physical and genetic male with genitalia still intact should not be able to self identify as a woman and go into women only spaces without you being called a transphobe, a biggot and promoting hate are you really happy with the concept of omnipotent surveillance?

That is the reality of what it means.  Let's suggest you make a comment similar to what i have outlined on PW, which would to any reasonable person be a reasonable and challenging statement, then a few weeks later you are in the local city centre when there is a demonstration by some radical types that is nothing at all to do with you, you just happen to be there; however good old facial recognition flags up your name as a participant, there is Dave who promotes intolerant transphobia online, he is at a radical march.

 Knock, knock, knock......   'Good evening sir, we have reason to consider that you are not a fit and proper person to be in possession of firearms, our evidence is your online hate speech and attendance at a rally promoting hatred and intolerance ....."

Im guessing they would need a bit more proof than you just being in town

Talking of trans gender how does being between genders effect the whole facial recognition mullarky i.e heavy makeup, false eyelashes and a blonde wig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Like saving money or showing off to your friends!

Exactly, socio-economic data - one person is likely to respond to something like improvements in social spending, the other might want relaxation of licencing perhaps. It's a very old and time tested process

 

6 minutes ago, islandgun said:

Im guessing they would need a bit more proof than you just being in town

Talking of trans gender how does being between genders effect the whole facial recognition mullarky i.e heavy makeup, false eyelashes and a blonde wig

Apparently the main things to disrupt is the distance between facial features like corner of eyes to edge of mouth as that is fundamentally what it's looking at. They did some trials and found the old dazzle camouflage used on warships was perfect if applied to a face. Clown makeup also works but might get you arrested near playgrounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, islandgun said:

Im guessing they would need a bit more proof than you just being in town

Talking of trans gender how does being between genders effect the whole facial recognition mullarky i.e heavy makeup, false eyelashes and a blonde wig

That’s a good question.

As for the police needing a volume of proof an ex colleague and friend of mine was investigated by Surrey police for a hate crime on the basis of comments on twitter that was no more than calling a self identifying ‘she’ a “he”.  Just a few months ago and covered on TV as well as the press. The he she’s mum, an ardent activist, phoned the cops and that was that.

That is derailing the thread, but we are at a point where using the wrong pronoun gets someone a knock on the door from the police, so maybe ‘attendance’ at a rally would be enough too.  Maybe not enough to see you in the clink, but sufficient to question your character to own a gun, especially if the chief constable is anti guns.

It’s a worryingly small step to get there.

Interesting to note that just this week the local authority of San Francisco have banned the use of facial recognition tools in the city due to both privacy and also the remarkably high failure rate of false positives in the technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

About 10 years ago I attended a defence and security expo in London where a company were showcasing surveillance that monitors the way people in a crowd behave pinpointing those who are exhibiting abnormal behaviour. With the advances in AI and ML I'm sure those systems could be of huge benefit today (and I believe they may already be routinely deployed at large events). Imagine how the outcome might have been different if such a system had been deployed, with the infrastructure available to act upon it, in the foyer of the Manchester Arena on that day, for example.

I can see both sides of the argument on the notion of nothing to fear but as the general guiding principle I think it holds and we should be able to trust that it will be upheld within the society that we are fortunate enough to live in.

I'd like to think you were right and such things could be avoided, but in my opinion there is no defence against a suicide bomber; he would have simply detonated the bomb the very moment officials showed an interest....' Excuse me sir, could we have a look ins......' 

I have to admit I'm very much against state interference in any part of my life, and resent greatly any authoritative intrusion at all. It has got me into bother on quite a few occasions throughout my life, and from an early age. I think I inherited ( if you can ) an inherent dislike for all things authoritative from my Dad. The ' If you've got nothing to hide ' argument isn't even an argument from my point of view; I'm more of the ' If I've done nothing wrong then mind your own business and leave me alone mindset.' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Scully said:

I'd like to think you were right and such things could be avoided, but in my opinion there is no defence against a suicide bomber; he would have simply detonated the bomb the very moment officials showed an interest....' Excuse me sir, could we have a look ins......' 

Yes, agreed, I did consider that but was using it as an example to illustrate a point.

If I've done nothing wrong then mind your own business and leave me alone mindset

But isn't it a case of chicken and egg here - how can 'they' know you've done nothing wrong unless they check you out first?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Let's not go round in circles again, both positions are imperfect. 

😀 But you can't check everyone to see if they've done something wrong! That's presuming guilt until proven innocent and the stuff of nightmares.....or an Orwellian society/state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...