Orwellian or not...thoughts..

[Scully]

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

Yes he was, they had a van with some face identification cameras plonked on top trialing it, he was told there were cameras up ahead by others so decided to cover his face, the police approached him and told him to uncover his face, he refused, he did tell them to "go away"so they fined him £90 for not uncovering his face.

In recent trials by other police forces one recognition system failed to recognize 2000 faces and another recognized someone who had committed a crime, he was arrested and held, but it was later shown that he was not the wanted person just looked similar.

 

I wasn’t aware you can be fined for not uncovering your face? 

I am aware you can be fined for telling the police to ‘go away.’

Is there a link? 

[12gauge82]

I think something is amiss here, I haven't seen the said footage but I can only think he's received a fine for a public order offence, it is to my knowledge perfectly legal to cover your face in public. 

[Rookandrabbit]

Section 60 of the public order act can be used in designated areas and empowers authorised officers to remove face coverings that are worn wholly or deliberately to conceal identity..... this must be authorised by an inspector and can be increased for a longer time period by a superintendent. Yet to issue this there are several caveats in place, and as is typical there are several other laws which grant a similar power eg knives act etc.

[grrclark]

32 minutes ago, Scully said:

I wasn’t aware you can be fined for not uncovering your face? 

I am aware you can be fined for telling the police to ‘go away.’

Is there a link? 

My thinking as well.

If it was just a random police van in the street I would be quite content to cover my face just to rattle them and would refuse to uncover it too, but i wouldn't tell them to 'go away', at least not using offensive language.

I am wholly against the use of random surveillance with face id, etc.

[Rookandrabbit]

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

Just now, Rookandrabbit said:

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

 

5 minutes ago, grrclark said:

My thinking as well.

If it was just a random police van in the street I would be quite content to cover my face just to rattle them and would refuse to uncover it too, but i wouldn't tell them to 'go away', at least not using offensive language.

I am wholly against the use of random surveillance with face id, etc.

 

[matone]

12 hours ago, figgy said:

I think it's got ridiculous, the amount of cameras and privacy rights they have bypassed with anti terrorism laws. 

We are basically a police state but staffed with incompetents. Both police and government.

Fined for covering his face, so all these others who cover their faces will be fined too. I think not. Crash helmets not to be worn in banks etc but full hoods can die to religion. 

This country has lost the plot.

You speak the thoughts of many !!! We`re all being inconvenienced and potentially criminalised because those who administer law & order have lost the ability to do so.

[B725]

Maybe he had his face covered but had his todger out. 

[ShootingEgg]

13 hours ago, B725 said:

So fined £90 for covering his face what happens if you are wearing a burka? 

Exactly my thoughts as I read that.. 

[davewh100]

13 hours ago, B725 said:

Vegans should be fined £90 for being vegan. 

lol 😁 true tho

[Lloyd90]

14 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

If you have nothing to hide why worry?

You wouldn’t mind if they stuck a camera inside your house then? 

 

[davewh100]

12 hours ago, walshie said:

Nothing at all. Rules only apply to some.

They are all stored somewhere for future reference if required.

think your bang on the money walshie one rule for one and one rule for others 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

You wouldn’t mind if they stuck a camera inside your house then? 

 

If they really wanted too, personally I feel the camera coverage is looking at everyone, noting some details and may well deter people from getting seen in the areas covered by them. If it stops a incident or results in someone being arrested for a crime I see that as a good thing. As I have said, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about!

[oowee]

He was not fined £90 for covering his face. He was fined £90 for a public order offence of swearing when police checked his ID. 

"Officers stopped a man who was seen acting suspiciously in Romford town centre during the deployment of the live facial recognition technology," a statement said.

 

"After being stopped the man became aggressive and made threats towards officers. He was issued with a penalty notice for disorder as a result."

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Simples!

[Walker570]

12 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

You wouldn’t mind if they stuck a camera inside your house then? 

 

They would need to go on stress counselling courses but no they are welcome if they think it will catch a criminal. Saves me buying CCTV.

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

He was not fined £90 for covering his face. He was fined £90 for a public order offence of swearing when police checked his ID. 

"Officers stopped a man who was seen acting suspiciously in Romford town centre during the deployment of the live facial recognition technology," a statement said.

 

"After being stopped the man became aggressive and made threats towards officers. He was issued with a penalty notice for disorder as a result."

There we go; knew we’d get there eventually! Ta. 

 

9 hours ago, grrclark said:

My thinking as well.

If it was just a random police van in the street I would be quite content to cover my face just to rattle them and would refuse to uncover it too, 

I am wholly against the use of random surveillance with face id, etc.

👍 My kinda guy! 

[Ultrastu]

The police cannot force you to give your name and address. If your walking along and arent suspected of a crime .

But they will always want to identify  anybody they talk to first so they can procced with questioning u and then decide if they can bring a charge against you .Without your details first they cant proceed .

So facial reccognition cameras on their shoulders instantly telling them who you are and what your guilty of gets round that  problem. 

 

[Scully]

8 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

If they really wanted too, personally I feel the camera coverage is looking at everyone, noting some details and may well deter people from getting seen in the areas covered by them. If it stops a incident or results in someone being arrested for a crime I see that as a good thing. As I have said, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about!

But will it stop an incident? Do we know if cameras have ever stopped an incident?  We’re heading into the territory of ‘if it saves one life, it’s worth it ‘ mentality here, and we know where that leads. 🤔

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I really do not know, but if it has the potential to do so I am happy for it to be used.

[Ricko]

We're inching closer and closer to a national identity card scheme, and if it prevents terrorism or solves crimes then it's ok by me.

Let's face it the government has several versions of my mugshot from driving licence, passport, SGC, etc. 

[Diver One]

On a slight tangent here, sorry.  About NOT giving name and address to Police when asked: I saw something on TV about councils issuing fines on the spot for people dropping litter. How does that work and where do they send the fine to? Just wondering ( no I don't drop litter.) Saw some scrotes drop their Kentucky fried rat packaging out of there car in a car park so I shouted very loudly that they had dropped something. They picked it up, probably dropped it on the first bend BUT I did my bit

[Rookandrabbit]

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. Where there may be religious sensitivities about ordering the removal of such an item, the officer should permit the item to be removed out of public view. Where practicable, the item should be removed in the presence of an officer of the same sex as the person and out of sight of anyone of the opposite sex. See Annex F of Codes of Practice PACE.

the above text is copied from another source.

So this is aimed at people who deliberately use a face covering to disguise their identity and not on racial or religious grounds.

If you photograph has already been given to a government department then it’s fair to say you will be in a facial recognition system. Even mobile phones have facial recognition so why cause officers more work by deliberately hiding your face and engineering a potential confrontation?? Our police service is stretched to breaking without this.

As for litter dropping shoplifting dog fouling anti social behaviour etc, you may be aware that under the 2002 police reform act designated officers were given powers to demand name address refusal can result in a court appearance and a fine. The designated officers must believe that the person they are demanding the details from HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENCE OR TRANSGRESSED A BYLAW. It is the police who have the power to REASONABLY SUSPECT.

 

As for CCTV as a deterrent I was listening to radio 4 a while back and an expert said initially once installed crime rate drops then when people are used to the cameras it returns to its previous levels especially in city centres. But seeing is believing and what better evidence than to watch it in court.

 

 

[RockySpears]

"

15 hours ago, Dave-G said:

Sorry to break ranks chaps but whats wrong with simply accepting that the more faces identified by any means possible ought to mean its easier to track people who have in the recent past broken laws and who our security forces need to keep tabs on - a bit like ANPR cameras I guess.

 

I'm a good lad these days and have no issues with plod knowing I went down the A47 at 17 minutes past six on the 13th November 2018. Heck that could even establish an alibi of my wherabouts at that exact time. 

  At the moment you are not.  But what if comrade Jezzer gets in?  What if he decides that gun owners should be more closley monitored, after all surely it is a good thing to know where all gun owners are is it not?

  If we track all gun owners, we will eventually catch them out, people make mistakes, and can take the gun off them legally.

Any one espousing the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" notion is woefully uninformed.

  In order to prevent domestic abuse, all homes will have cameras installed in all rooms and can be monitored 24x7 over your broadband.  It WILL work, it WILL reduce abuse, most assuredly, but do you want it in your home, you have nothing to hide do you?  If you don't allow this, maybe you are an abuser or conduct other, illicit practices in your home, you should definitely not be allowed your guns.

If your face is captured and seems to relate to a crime, you get arrested (you lose your guns immediately do you not?).  A crime was commited and your "alibi" is that you were out in the marshes, alone with the dog at 4.00 in the morning.  Now prove it was not you, remember, we have your face,

 

RS

 

[RockySpears]

17 minutes ago, Rookandrabbit said:

But seeing is believing and what better evidence than to watch it in court.

 

  Ok, the guy in the video looks like me, but now proove it IS me (are there not something like 7 people in the world with similar feature to me?).  CCTV cannot be used to gain a conviction, it can ONLY be used as supporting evidence.  If CCTV were any use there ought to be hardly any crime at all anywhere, or at least vastly fewer crimes surely?

 

RS

[Blackbriar]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

If they really wanted too, personally I feel the camera coverage is looking at everyone, noting some details and may well deter people from getting seen in the areas covered by them. If it stops a incident or results in someone being arrested for a crime I see that as a good thing. As I have said, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about!

Or, nefarious types will just conduct their 'business' in an area that's not under surveillance ?