zlacker

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

From the article:

> Under the plans, 10 live facial recognition (LFR) vans will be used by seven forces across England to help identify "sex offenders or people wanted for the most serious crimes", according to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.

I guess it depends on how dangerous these criminals are. If there was someone offing kids randomly in my neighborhood, I wouldn't necessarily be against this technology. I think it would be good in schools, where we really should know exactly anyone entering the school. But of course there is a limit.

>>bko+(OP)
I seriously doubt this would stand up to a rational cost benefit analysis. If the lives of children are so very valuable I’m sure there are many more effective and cheaper things they could be doing on a per-life basis.

>>bko+(OP)
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

I’ll let you figure out who’s quote that is

>>bko+(OP)
I'd bet good money "sex offenders and people wanted for the most serious crimes" end up being just a tiny fraction of the use to which the systems are put to in practice. The age verification law was supposed to be protecting children from adult content, but on the very first day they used it to lock down video of political demonstrations.

>>bududu+Ij
This is a manufactured, made up "quote". There's no such passage in the book you claim it comes from.

>>bko+(OP)
once they have them, over time they will justify widening their use - just a little bit each time.

>>subscr+uI
Good to know

>>laughi+Qs
I am pretty sure that the government did not directly instruct websites to remove protest footage in the case you are referring to. There is substantial ambiguity in the Online Safety Act, so it is only natural that companies that don't have a stake in what they're publishing will be quick to consider it too risky to show.

This is important, because if your point ever becomes a significant argument against the Online Safety Act, it is likely that the government will be able to retort that it was the online services voluntarily censoring - conveniently ignoring, of course, the context which you and I know of.