In principle I would see nothing wrong with having the same with facial recognition for wanted people (frankly, why would this not exist if technology is available?), though I'm guessing that people on the run would quickly learn to avoid them.
I feel we are in a phase of facial recognition development in which some people reject it as a matter of principle or because they only see the worst that might be done with it. I'm hoping for a more balanced approach (not holding my breath...).
Cars are licenced transport. You are required to a) tax and maintain your vehicle b) identify who was driving the vehicle if you are the registered owner and requested to do so by the police and c) not obscure or obfuscate your number plate.
Faces are not licenced, are uniquely identifiable personal data - ignoring the enormous false positive detection rate from current technology - and everyone has one. Consider the implications for a supposedly free society (of which the United Kingdom no longer is one) where the state can draw arbitrary inferences from the presence of someone with a face that matches pattern X in location Y on date Z.
If a facial recognition system is only linked to a database of wanted people then it won't be able to ID people not on that database. I.e. if it is no worse than a normal CCTV for everyone who is not wanted by the police.
Therefore, in principle there is no negative impacts in terms of privacy or liberty compared to existing CCTVs.
The only issue is technical: False positives (which I'm not sure the numbers would be 'enormous' at the moment). This is bound to improve over time and can be mitigated with the appropriate police procedures on how to respond to an alert by such a system.
> for a supposedly free society (of which the United Kingdom no longer is one)
Of course if that's your opinion we're not going to be able to have a discussion on the topic...
Never mind the possibility of Hollywood-quality fakes.
I have occasionally considered starting a religion with a tenet of wearing uniform clothing (subject to weather) and identical masks whenever out in public. There's ample precedent from other religions. I figure it might even be profitable, from selling the "official" uniforms and masks, and from the overpriced cafe in the meetings hall.
That's the law with or without special cameras that are only there to enforce the law.
If you get caught by police instead you will also get a fine and they will seize your car as a bonus. If you get caught by those camera vans while parked they will clamp the car.
Likewise, if you are wanted you are liable to be detained the instant police recognises you. It's just that the process is very inefficient at the moment because it relies on being recognised by police. In practice it means that they have to specifically be looking for you.
I don't understand how you could have interpreted my comment as suggesting otherwise...
Edit: also don't bother translating or reading the comments on that website. They are youtube-comment quality.
edit: the cameras aren't being banned, the facial recognition software must be disabled
The automated passport gates (for Belgian eIDs and EU biometric passports) are not included or affected and will keep working (when they're not broken or closed).
- There was no prior study about possible the privacy implications.
- No approval was asked before the project started although such an approval is mandatory under GDPR.
- Some changes in law are needed to allow to keep such a database. Current laws only permit licence plate databases.
- There were too many false positives.
[0] https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/09/20/politie-mag-geen-aut...
