Real-Time Surveillance Will Test the British Tolerance for Cameras

Buy stock in companies that sell cowboy hats, sunglasses, and stick-on facial hair.

Facial recognition, as described by this article, is a civil liberties issue because it's being used to find a 'needle in the haystack' among a large population of individuals. That's because the technology has a high 'false positive rate'. It's the same reason that the U.S. Postal Service doesn't scan every envelope for toxins like anthrax or ricin. If they did, they would produce a huge pile of false positives every day, which they would then have to open, inspect, and handle in a quarantined facility...none of which would actually contain any toxic materials. It would be a total waste of time and resources. Here's how the numbers work out for facial recognition: The false positive rate of the best facial recognition systems is about 1%...about the same as a home pregnancy test or pre-employment drug test. If we assume that the facial recognition system has a false-positive rate of 1.0%, and if a nation-wide facial recognition system scans 1 million faces a day, and if 10% of individuals who trigger positive are actually stopped and questioned by police, then the police can expect to find: 0.01 x 1,000,000 x 0.1 = 1,000 false positives per day. Stated another way, every day in the U.K. 1,000 innocent people will be stopped, questioned and detained. I would hope that if 1,000 innocent people in the U.K. were harassed this way every day, then the general population will soon stop cooperating with law enforcement.

It's no the technology that's worrisome - it's how it's used. Like guns, it can be a curse or a blessing. We need the debate on how to use it before we deploy it.

A danger is that all those scanned faces can be saved in a data file. Each one given a number. When that particular face is scanned again a note to the original file is made. Then it happens again, and again. Little by little a comprehensive history of that particular face is built up. When the face is finally identified as being that of a specific person, then that person's habits are known by the police. Even an erroneous traffic stop could create the tying link. Still, the police will argue, there's nothing to worry about if the individual isn't a law breaker. Well, I'm not so sure. And in any case, my personal habits of travel, shopping, choice of hair style, etc are not the business of the government. Period.

Let the law guarantee coverage of legal defense fees and a compensation minimum for wrongful detention by use of facial recognition cameras. Label the van/camera - Facial Recognition Camera. Cops wear a badge for a reason. Take the fun out of inflating arrest and detention statistics. Put a price on failure to record cleared arrest records. Reduce the incentive for Republican cross dressing.

Another opportunity for the police to exercise their traditional and institutional contempt of those they oversee. More shredding of constitutional and individual rights... Any belief that this technology can be controlled and channelled and not be abused by the "authorities" is naive. Overdue traffic ticket? Stay away from your kids soccer tournament.

Regulation hasn’t caught up to technology in several aspects of our lives. Facial recognition is one of them and a big one! Autonomous driving, license plate reading etc are other examples. Shouldn’t there be a some form of secondary confirmation before a match is deemed good enough to act on it?

Not sure what to say here as ive never even noticed these cameras but though I do think this technology can be abused unfortunately its just a fact of life that their needed in the UK.. You can argue against it from a position of privacy but not when they can potentially catch those who intend harm and unlike the US the threats are much worse and very very present...

"The roughly 420,000 closed-circuit television cameras in London are more than in any other city except Beijing, equaling about 48 cameras per 1,000 people, more than Beijing,..." That is about 1 camera for every 20 people! It is hard to understand how they can even afford that let alone the people to watch the cameras if that is what they do.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin saw this one coming. The concept is sound, but inevitably those using it take it much too far. We've already sacrificed too much privacy with the Patriot Act. It's depressing to have all of these folks screaming about their Second Amendment rights but completely ignoring the loss of their Fourth Amendment rights.

The "I've got nothing to hide" and the feeling that group security is much more important that privacy is troubling. It reminds me of "good guy with a gun" arguments. Just trust me, I'm on your side. Facial recognition technology needs to be studied before it is enacted and heavily regulated if used. Assuming that this technology will only be used by well meaning and responsible law enforcement officers is problematic. How much will human behavior and human interactions be changed when everyone assumes they are being watched by a suspicious third party? Don't wish for something to hard, you may get it.

This is the backdrop against which British culture had generated such great dystopian fiction as ‘1984’, television series like ‘The Prisoner’ and, more recently, ‘The Last Enemy’, featuring ‘Total Information Awareness’, frighteningly resembling where we are all heading. They are more aware of the real cost of security.

It has to be regulated of course, but do not ban it.

I’ve heard people say, “what kind of privacy do you expect to have, walking around in public?” But I think it’s reasonable—even if paradoxical—to expect some version of privacy even on busy NYC sidewalks. I hope it can be understood that anonymity is a form of privacy, which most of us can reasonably expect, even in broad daylight.

Though this is framed as a technology issue, it is really a matter of how much we trust the technology users. In countries where trust in government and police is high, face recognition (facial recognition–technology that will detect plastic surgery–is still in the future) will be welcomed as an enhancement to an existing service. Though a little frayed in Britain, trust in government is still high, as is deployment of face recognition technology. Americans' trust in government is traditionally low–the right to bear arms is a right to defend oneself from tyrannical government–so we can expect slower uptake. In China, where the central government has been both trusted and admired for 2200 years and personal privacy has never been valued, it's not even an issue.

You have to see this in a wider context. Yes, the UK has widespread camera use but it has a virtually unarmed civilian police force, no ID cards, and a governance culture of trust in law and order authorities (for the most part). If the tech means that we don't have to arm our police or create a huge new state ID system then most people would be in favour.

For all those in favour of this, what should the limits be? Should the police get access to private security cameras too (eg. Amazon's Ring doorbell)? What if those privately owned cameras were inside your home?

According to a recent survey, 97.6% of criminals were against surveillance cameras and the use of AI to identify perpetrators of crimes. Similarly, in the late 1800s and early 1900s surveys of criminals were undertaken and 96.8% of them were against the use of fingerprints to identify perpetrators of crimes. I am pretty sure a huge majority of law-abiding Americans support any techniques, including surveillance cameras, that will make their lives safer, reduce crimes and apprehend criminals. The only people who have to fear surveillance cameras and AI identification are those involved in illicit behavior.

This is an old debate. I can remember when the police recruiters were given the use of optometry technology to dramatically improve police officers recognition capacity through the use of eyeglass wear. Suddenly citizens who would have continued enjoyed their Sunday afternoons were being hauled in to the police stations because they were recognized from their wanted posters. How many wanted criminals have to suffer before we stop the madness with technology!

If those living in large US cities had the terror problem that exits in London or Manchester, they’d be cheering on this technology, which makes limited police resources far more productive. It’s in its infancy, and a proper legal framework needs to be developed, but camera surveillance has solved significant levels of crime in the UK, and no doubt deterred much more. This is a logical next step.

There you go, as if you needed it. One more reason why friends don't let friends drink Starbucks.

I really do feel my privacy is intruded upn when Google reads my mail and asks whether I want dates put on my calendar, or reminds me about them. That feels like a real intrusion into my personal life. But please scan my face whenever and as often as you like. I have nothing to hide or to fear except what others might do. I am a law-abiding senior and not a threat to anyone. So please go ahead as you wish. My "right to privacy" is as nothing beside the need for us all to stay safe from those who would--for whatever reason; that is not important--harm us. Please protect us all by whatever non-intrusive means are necessary and available. PS While I hate and resent screenings at airports, they come under the same basic umbrella of keeping us all safe from the tiny minority who would do us harm.