zlacker

>>amarch+(OP)
The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for. Whether or not this is ethical or useful, I wish the hypocrisy would be acknowledged. The OSA, the Apple encryption demands, LFR, …, it’s clearly a trend. Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

>>Shank+Bj
> The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for.

they always had been or at least tried, for decades by now, the only thing which had been holding them back was the EU frequently being like "no wtf UK, that is against human rights, EU law, etc."

> Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?

no, and it also has a long track record of not only marginally improving your crime statistics. And especially stuff like facial recognition vans are most times not used to protect citizens but to create lists for who attended demos and similar. Which is most useful for suppressing/harassing your citizens instead of protecting them.

>>dathin+cW
EU is on exactly the same road, just with a (tiny) delay.

>>zosima+F43
except no, the EU has specifically outlawed facial recognition in public places

>>permo-+W83
They have outlawed _live_ facial recognition in public places. And with exemptions such as e.g. terrorism, which I'm guessing is what UK is going to go for with protesters.

>>zosima+L93
my friend, I'm sorry but this is simply a factual bridge too far. the EU has quite specifically brought out wide-ranging laws heavily restricting the very thing the UK is doing, plus a load of other very positive restrictions on the use of AI and biometrics in general, and yet your conclusion is that they're on the same path? it's like if I say I'm never going to eat meat except rare unavoidable occasions, and you think I'm en route to becoming the liver king. just admit you like criticising the EU and be done with it

>>permo-+Cc3
What is non-factual?

We have another token legislation from EU forbidding private parties to most anything, and carefully inserting loopholes for authorities and government to do as they please.

True, the restrictions on live facial recognition is a bit more severe for law enforcement than usual.

But: A. It's not something most people here care about a lot. Law enforcement are still allowed to use AI to create a file on every citizen. B. It gives them political points, because now people less-in-the-know will think that they are actually protecting privacy, which is again, not true.