London Police Are Taking Surveillance to a Whole New Level

And the tech doesn't seem to work anyway. Only 8 correct out of 42. All overhyped. Theranos stuff.

I'm SO glad I'll never go to little england now that they've signed up for Brexit and thus written the REAL longest suicide note in history. (So happy for Harry and Meghan too!) If anyone who WASN'T a wealthy corporation or toughguy cop kept staring at your face in real time wherever you went to figure out who you were, you'd leave THEIR face unrecognizable with a well-placed fist for sure.

Good for them.

"God" spies on everyone anyway.

And if people decide to start wearing masks - Halloween masks, or masks to protect against disease or pollution, or balaclavas - or hijabs, or hats pulled way down to conceal their faces? Then what? Well, several US states prohibit anything that can conceal your face - it's just not often enforced. Hijabs have already been outlawed in several Western "democracies." Does anybody see where this is going? Your privacy rights are yours and yours alone. A government has to justify taking those rights away from you personally, and if they're spying on a crowd of people and they see you and run your face through their database, they've violated your rights. That's the problem with mass surveillance - it vacuums up everybody regardless of whether they're "persons of interest" or not. We've already seen that with government listening in on our phone calls - with the cooperation of AT&T. Now they're starting to use Facebook and Google. They like to use the argument that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." Well, that argument should work against the government too, right? But of course it doesn't. The government protects its privacy while stealing yours. Police can wear balaclavas and so cannot be identified using face recognition; you can't. Britain has been closely surveilling its populace for a long time. British TV crime shows would have lots of unsolved crimes if not for CCTV. Nineteen Eighty-Four is in our future, and our freedom is in jeopardy.

Good to know. London was on our vacation list. Now it's not. I know that doesn't matter at all, but my wife and I do what we can to limit our exposure to the worldwide surveilance state. There are, fortunately, many places one can still go without being digitized.

The comparison between Britain and China seems overblown. China’s use of the technology extends far beyond public safety considerations. There might be a day when that comparison is reasonable but not now.

Hoping to solve issues with more control, more authority, more watching...methinks not.

Commenters who express concerns about hacking or government misuse of facial recognition technology have a point. On the other hand, it seems that every time a terrorist makes a successful attack on innocent people, there's an outcry from the media and public. "The police should have prevented this." "The suspect was known and should have been kept under surveillance." So if you are against the development of this technology, and you may have valid reasons, remember that when you feel the impulse to criticize law enforcement for failing to stop an attack or catch a serial rapist. It's a tradeoff.

Great idea, spend millions on a system so people that steal thousands don't fall between the cracks. And let white collar criminals like John Stumpf of Wells Fargo go free that steal millions and billions. Sounds about right.

I would prefer more cops on the beat. Cameras can't replace intelligence-gathering and observations.

"Tackling serious crime" ? Guess that means they are going to put the spy-cams in the bank boardroom and their legal consul's offices instead of the lobby and on the streets. About time somebody in Government is finally getting serious about the real criminals.

The inaccuracy is no surprise. This AI technology sorts many millions of faces into "neighborhoods" that LOOK LIKE the suspect - something never available before. Of course witnesses or even trained law enforcement will confirm many hits that are simply erroneous, in a lineup like that.

If you think logically about this, the natural future development of technology will bring the ability to see everything to all devices whether people want that or not. For example, when all cars are self driving they will talk to and watch each other. That will make autonomous vehicles safer than those driven by people. Ring doorbell already work together as a mesh. So ever visage of every person will be observed by every device. Any privacy laws passed today and those already in place will be rendered moot. The word privacy will at some point even fall out of our vocabulary. Any rule put forth today to try to blur our vision makes no sense as even the concept of blind will disappear, even for people who have lost their eyes, with future Google Glasses. So given that all of this is inevitable, London should forget about trying to put blinders on the police and make plans for when they will be able to see through the notorious fog.

I would like to see an organized, concerted effort to dissuade tourists from visiting London. I have avoided going there ever since I learned about the proliferation of closed-circuit cameras decades ago, but this is a new and horrifying development. Some kind of collective action is going to be necessary to stop this toboggan slide into a surveillance state that many countries find themselves on.

There are other things going on around Brexit that most people didn't catch. For example Boris Johnson has made money available to build a lot of new prisons. One wonders: what for? My prediction: Britain will suffer a severe economic crisis, leading to social turmoil. Johnson and his ilk are preparing for that, hence the prisons and total surveilance. It's going to be "V for Vendetta" all over again :-)

In extreme times (2001 bombings to today) the public may become seduced in the belief that less privacy (in the widespread use of spy cameras) is preferred to ensure public safety. But what might be lost when an innocent is apprehended and detained? Who is really accountable? And perhaps equally important, in times of stress and rapid response,will the "Rule of Law" continue to apply? Where will those who are detained be held? Will the police or even the courts be able to protect the public?

My students are usually surprised to find Orwell's 1984 was written by a Brit and set in London.

They are already using facial recognition technology in China. Of course everyone there walks around wearing a face mask to protect themselves against pollution, corona virus.....or for whatever reason?

Sure, they'll use it on citizens, but how much do you want to bet they won't use it to catch all those wealthy insiders who stole billions of Europeans' tax dollars in the Cum-Ex Trading scandal that was based out of the City of London?

it's so they can check if the mayor (sadiq khan) is actually in the capital, he never seesm to be around to do his job

I appreciate the irony of this story just above the one about the cum-ex thievery done by those whose faces would be easy to identify as they are probably included in the web sites of the upstanding banks and investment firms who engaged in what is apparently some very serious crime.

The article below this one in my feed is about the “Cum-Ex” scam that’s been perpetrated on European governments by rich bankers, more than a few in London. The amount of money nicked by the ethics-challenged wealthy may well be over $60 billion. Maybe the police are looking in the wrong places for criminals. Put the facial recognition cameras in the trading rooms.

How many of us are living in safe neighborhoods-communities? Would our position to the use of the technology maybe more accepting if it makes a lesser safe community more safe...In a community we were living in?

The Brits can’t be that gelatinous , or can they ?

Users will inevitably be hacked. The data will end up in the hands of real criminals. What then?

"London Police Amp Up Surveillance With Real-Time Facial Recognition" "cities including New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington have at least piloted the use of the real-time systems." It is ironic that this surveillance in so-called "western" countries is reported with such indifference. Compare it to the NYTimes headlines below: July 8, 2018: "Inside China’s Dystopian Dreams: A.I., Shame and Lots of Cameras" Dec. 17, 2019: "A Surveillance Net Blankets China’s Cities, Giving Police Vast Powers" When we infringe on privacy with invasive surveillance...it is for "safety and security". When China does the same thing...we call them an "authoritative regime spying on their citizens".

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

Goodbye freedom. Goodbye privacy. Goodbye to the right to enjoy life without the overt intrusion of government. Goodbye Great Britain. Hello China redux. Hello 1984...only much worse.

Finally: the opportunity to punish more innocent poor people

This extension of CCTV surveillance to include facial recognition technology seems like a disgraceful curtailment of our civil liberties by the back door. It is not so long ago (2010) that the proposal to make identity cards mandatory in the UK was rescinded. Originally introduced on the most absurd toy-town national security basis rather than the bulwark to lazy, reactive policing and supposedly to enable the intelligence services to concentrate on more opaque threats, this proposal was gradually ridiculed in to its final termination before the requirement was rolled out. Having had that experience it seems that the security establishment have decided to try to avoid most public debate (and ridicule) by simply introducing the technology in London under the Met's operation. Of course, it's the "Thin End of the Wedge" as Uncle Matthew would have said.

I hope that the penalties for abusing the technology will be severe and fully enforced without individuals being protected by corporate law. I also hope that the programs are so transparent that every citizen will be able to access every detail about the program and the actual data itself. I won't hold my breath.

Those who are claiming this is not a concern with the argument that "those who have nothing to hide should have nothing to fear" do not consider the implications of where constant surveillance takes us as a society. The capacity for abuse of this technology is extremely high - either from a rogue operator who just wants to snoop of people to weaponizing the system against political or social opponents, both real and perceived. Just like any technology related to issues of privacy, this needs to be regulated, controlled, and the storage and usage of the data collected needs to be publicly-accountable.

" Officers will post signs and hand out leaflets when the cameras are in use." Oh brilliant ! "Hello Mr Criminal. Here's a leaflet. There's the camera. You might want to walk in the other direction."

While I support each citizens right to a level personal privacy that they choose; this city has been almost completely monitored by CCTV for years now, a practice that appears to have been far more accepted then it would be if implemented in the US. Furthermore as a city that has been the victim of several tragic attacks in recent years, I believe that an increase in public security is warranted. As a citizen I certainly value my privacy and personal data but we are unfortunately in an age of tech where police must constantly make technological advancements to their security not because it is simply available, but because it is necessary. I, however, do not support London's decision to implement this system with minimal public discussion regarding the matter. The decision to sacrifice a nation or city's privacy in favor of its own security is one that should be made as a nation with all citizens well informed of the new freedoms this gives the police and the restrictions that will be placed on the tech. Furthermore, I strongly agree with Mr Murray's points regarding the rushed implementation of this tech. No piece of security should be implemented when failing tests as poorly as the facial recognition system has and strict, transparent laws should be passed detailing the limitations and usage of this tech before it is simply handed to the police who may use it as they choose. I support this tech but I do not believe that it was implemented in a fair and just manner.

Many people express their indifference to surveillance cameras in the streets. They say they've got nothing to hide. A future step, as envisioned by George Orwell many years ago, is cameras inside your house. Will people still say the same thing?

We have no privacy in public. I don't know that that means every move I make should be registered, except, of course, by my phone.

Right wing and frightening!

This is funny. A related story referenced below, one about China using facial recognition technology to shame people who wear pajamas in public, referred to the technology as an instrument of "digital totalitarianism." Nowhere is the current story -- about American ally Great Britain's use of the same technology -- does the times use that catchy but inflammatory phrase, "digital totalitarianism." The Times also usually manages to refrain from referring to the British Government as a "regime." Is there a special chapter in the Times style book that explains how Times reporters and editors are supposed to apply this double standard? If so, please publish it for all to read.

all a conniving mind would need is access to that database and a picture of their ex....

The only SERIOUS crime occurring in London is by its unregulated banks stealing tax payers money across the EU. See todays NYT article regarding the biggest tax heist in Europe.

This ought to be court supervised, as for other hyper-surveillance, and evidence from violatiions excluded from evidence. UK has much worse civil rights protection from government cyber-snooping than the USA or Canada, as we learned when the Guardian interviewed Snowden in the film Citizenfour: his response to the reporter's snide inquiry about the NSA was while it's limited to collecting metadata, the British spy agencies were hoovering everything up, content and all. There's been no legal trimming of "MI5/6" wicks.

'They' - the British Establishment are terrified of the plebs.

Bad move against a free society. I guess we’ve all known it’s been coming to an abrupt end.

Am I going to have to wear a mask in public? My face is mine. Displaying it is not a conscious decision. You can't be suspected of a crime because of the arrangement of your facial features (not since phrenology went away). I have a right against warrantless investigations, which is exactly what universal facial recognition is. It's the same as putting microphones on all the street corners to listen for tips, with 99% of the information they receive being personal or private. We're letting them because we think technology happens on its own, as a force of nature, and that once something is possible to do, it will inevitably be the future. We can ban facial recognition technology if we want to. We won't because people enjoy giving up their freedoms for unfounded feelings of safety, and we are way more excited about the latest toy than we are interested in its repercussions.

Serious crime is, like many judgement calls, in the eye of the beholder. The standard to use of any such technology should be whether it would be safe in the hands of one's political opposites.