zlacker

[return to "Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England"]
1. Shank+Bj[view] [source] 2025-08-13 13:23:41
>>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?
◧◩
2. dathin+cW[view] [source] 2025-08-13 16:25:33
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. zosima+F43[view] [source] 2025-08-14 10:13:08
>>dathin+cW
EU is on exactly the same road, just with a (tiny) delay.
◧◩◪◨
4. permo-+W83[view] [source] 2025-08-14 11:02:57
>>zosima+F43
except no, the EU has specifically outlawed facial recognition in public places
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. zosima+L93[view] [source] 2025-08-14 11:11:46
>>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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. permo-+Cc3[view] [source] 2025-08-14 11:39:38
>>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
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. zosima+Ud3[view] [source] 2025-08-14 11:52:04
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. permo-+Eh3[view] [source] 2025-08-14 12:21:10
>>zosima+Ud3
>forbidding private parties to most anything

well thank fuck for that! besides financial self-interest, why would you want private parties doing anything with AI and biometrics whatsoever? if anyone is to at all, it should be publicly accountable bodies that aren't operating based on a profit motive, but really it should be none at all!

>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.

this entire sentence stinks of "I just don't like the EU and I'm just going to criticise it no matter what". people in the know? people who have read the law specifically stating that facial recognition can only be used in severe, clearly-defined cases, with judicial approval, in highly time-limited windows? people who've read that if it is to be used post-hoc, it has to have judicial authorisation linked to a criminal offence. and you're saying that this in no way protects privacy?

the UK is rolling out AI police vans all over the country to try and recognise people they have on lists. no judicial approval is required, there's no time-limit, and as far as I'm aware there's no restriction on what crimes it's used for either. private companies are allowed to use it, obviously equally with no judicial approval

essentially mate, I think you need to have a good look at whether your opinions here are coming from "I genuinely think the EU's legislation is an issue here" or "I don't like the idea of the EU in general and I'm going to criticise anything it does"

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. pessim+7m4[view] [source] 2025-08-14 18:06:00
>>permo-+Eh3
Please stop telling people what stuff "reads like" until after you go over what they actually said. And never say something "reads like" anything akin to "you sound like a hater."

Or at least just say that straight instead of surrounding it with empty verbiage. The overwhelming proportion of people all over the world don't care about the EU until it does a horrible (or a good) thing, and then they care about the thing it did and why it might have done it. It's not their ex-boyfriend.

People are trying to figure out why it's run by crazy people now, and they blame this on the fact that it is largely an undemocratic organization run by extreme multi-generational elites with a quickly lowering opinion on human rights, freedom of speech and the importance of peace. This is not personal. The EU is not a person.

[go to top]