Jon Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 5 Live Investigates was just on. They're were talking to a lobbyist.....Yesterday he'd been present at a demonstration of a new camera for aircraft. This plane wasn't just capable of reading number plates from several thousand feet, it used facial recognition software to identify drivers. The other interviewee couldn't believe he'd said it on the radio... I heard it too, took a min or two to sink in but... Orwell wasn't far off the reality of the situation these days. I've seen these cameras too. I must confess when I saw one in action, I was gobsmacked how good it was. Anyway, the point being, after thinking about it, that the resolution of the camera isn't a bad thing. Facial recognition software, were it to be tallied up to the camera isn't a bad thing. There are examples most people could think of where being able to identify someone from a long way away would be a very good thing indeed. The issue comes if the camera is used across the board, indeterminately rather than as a particular tool for a particular situation or set of circumstances. So I don't agree that a "plane wasn't just capable of reading number plates from several thousand feet, it used facial recognition software to identify drivers" is Big Brother-esque. It would only be that if the capability was used in a particular way by the state. That's what needs to be safeguarded against. Trying to think of a way around facial recognition technology .... Trying to think of a way around facial recognition technology .... EDIT: Or you could just employ the traditional 'Hoodie' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 The issue comes if the camera is used across the board, indeterminately rather than as a particular tool for a particular situation or set of circumstances. So I don't agree that a "plane wasn't just capable of reading number plates from several thousand feet, it used facial recognition software to identify drivers" is Big Brother-esque. It would only be that if the capability was used in a particular way by the state. That's what needs to be safeguarded against. The issue is too late to be dealt with when the camera is used across the board and the only 'safeguards' that would be put in place are ones which can and would be ridden roughshod over when necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 18, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 18, 2012 I disagree, Snowy. I see no reason why a Parliament couldn't make laws covering the use of cameras that are analogous to those for phone tapping or other electronic surveillance methods. You can't uninvent technology. You can't stop people taking technology A and matching it up to technology B to make a new capability. You have to legislate for the "benign" and "fair" use of it by law agencies and Companies. That's just the way it is (on my strange planet at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 18, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 18, 2012 Thing is though, do you trust this (or any probable) government to legislate those laws correctly, not leaving them open ended and open to abuse by future governments, who will use them in ways not initially intended? I don't, history proves my suspicion countless times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I see no reason why a Parliament couldn't make laws ... I see no reason why a Parliament couldn't, either. I also see little evidence to support the fantasy that it would. I see absolutely no reason why those laws would then be observed in future, not stretched to suit circumstances and not 'temporarily suspended' due to whatever emotive reasons cluttered up the airwaves. All of which would generally mean that any 'good intentions' at the beginning in creating the conditions for 'benign use' (that seems a very Orwellian way of putting something) are, if not forgotten, assigned to a past that is not 'facing the problems of today' (or some such). The problem is not just about the individual 'mission creep' particular to each law but the overall attitude - that society generally gets inured to each and every encroachment so that it doesn't really notice them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Thing is though, do you trust this (or any probable) government to legislate those laws correctly, not leaving them open ended and open to abuse by future governments, who will use them in ways not initially intended? I don't, history proves my suspicion countless times. Too right, such as laws introduced as anti-terrorist surveillance being used to poke around in peoples lives by organisations that have nothing to do with either the police or security or intelligence agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Say some sensitive financial data is garnered as a by-product from eavesdropping incorrectly targeted sources. Would you trust the Tories not to abuse industrial or fiscal information for personal gain? Would you attempt to nail jelly to the ceiling? Big business will set up their own secure comms networks, tbh I would too. Oops edited wrong post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Big business will set up their own secure comms networks, tbh I would too. Skype is fine. If the people monitoring you have the tools to crack that then they can also defeat any other system and crypto you believe is secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Skype is fine. If the people monitoring you have the tools to crack that then they can also defeat any other system and crypto you believe is secure. I don't buy that. Information doesn't have to come down a line. Think smoke signal, or pigeon or A4 pad in a suitcase on a private jet or yacht. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Thing is though, do you trust this (or any probable) government to legislate those laws correctly, not leaving them open ended and open to abuse by future governments, who will use them in ways not initially intended? I don't, history proves my suspicion countless times. Too right, such as laws introduced as anti-terrorist surveillance being used to poke around in peoples lives by organisations that have nothing to do with either the police or security or intelligence agencies. To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. "PJ" Proudhon, who died in 1865. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endof Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 We are run by a dictatorship it's that simple.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I don't buy that. Information doesn't have to come down a line. Think smoke signal, or pigeon or A4 pad in a suitcase on a private jet or yacht. Ok, but that's going to make doing business on a day to day level quite challenging, and if it's electronic it's vulnerable. Would the evil Tory Government use GCHQ to gather commercially useful information for them and their mates? Would GCHQ be party to that? I'm sure some people would love to believe it but I think we all know the country doesn't actually work like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Thing is though, do you trust this (or any probable) government to legislate those laws correctly, not leaving them open ended and open to abuse by future governments, who will use them in ways not initially intended? I don't, history proves my suspicion countless times. Too right, such as laws introduced as anti-terrorist surveillance being used to poke around in peoples lives by organisations that have nothing to do with either the police or security or intelligence agencies. To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. "PJ" Proudhon, who died in 1865. Unfortunately politicians incorrectly believe they do have the right, wisdom and virtue, to inflict upon us unfair, unjust and just plain wrong laws and taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Would the evil Tory Government use GCHQ to gather commercially useful information for them and their mates? Initially, no. Then something like this happens. .... some sensitive financial data is garnered as a by-product from eavesdropping incorrectly targeted sources. That's how it starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 The argument will be that such provisions would be used against only the most dangerous people who are trying to overthrow civilisation as we know it, and enslave us all. The truth is that they are already sanctioning police lying in court under oath in cases against nonviolent treehuggers who hold street parties to protest against cars taking over our streets. Clarke and the rest of them are lying when they claim there is good reason for these measures, and that they will be used only in extremis. They are acting shamefully in eroding our rights, and they must be stopped. Police chiefs are facing damaging allegations that they authorised undercover officers embedded in protest groups to give false evidence in court in order to protect their undercover status. Documents seen by the Guardian suggest that an undercover officer concealed his true identity from a court when he was prosecuted alongside a group of protesters for occupying a government office during a demonstration. From the moment he was arrested, he gave a false name and occupation, maintaining this fiction throughout the entire prosecution, even when he gave evidence under oath to barristers. The officer, Jim Boyling, and his police handlers never revealed to the activists who stood alongside him in court that he was actually an undercover policeman who had penetrated their campaign months earlier under a fake identity. Boyling was undercover, using the name Jim Sutton, between 1995 and 2000 in the campaign Reclaim the Streets, which organised colourful, nonviolent demonstrations against the overuse of cars, such as blocking roads and holding street parties. Boyling and the protesters were represented by the same law firm, Bindmans, as they held sensitive discussions to decide how they were going to defend themselves in court. The activists allege that Boyling and his superiors broke the campaigners' fundamental right to hold legally protected consultations with their lawyers and illicitly obtained details of the private discussions. The real danger to our liberty and our way of life is the government, and those among the police who knowingly break the law in this way. Bit disingenuous don't you think Pete? Clarke had nothing to do with the events highlighted in the article since the investigationand trial took place under Labour. Or was that the Tories fault as well for not being a better opposition? Apologies for replying to a post that's six months old. My excuse is that I didn't notice it until it was pushed back up the list. Or something like that. Yes, the events took place under Labour. The post was in connection with a further erosion of liberty proposed by the Tories. I see no significant difference between the policies of the two parties in their contempt for civil liberties. I think Labour has more genuine civil libertarians among its ranks, though they are suppressed by the Blairite nomenklatura. Tories and authoritarianism go together like bread and butter, so don't look for relief from that quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 20, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 20, 2012 I see no reason why a Parliament couldn't make laws ... I see no reason why a Parliament couldn't, either. I also see little evidence to support the fantasy that it would. I see absolutely no reason why those laws would then be observed in future, not stretched to suit circumstances and not 'temporarily suspended' due to whatever emotive reasons cluttered up the airwaves. All of which would generally mean that any 'good intentions' at the beginning in creating the conditions for 'benign use' (that seems a very Orwellian way of putting something) are, if not forgotten, assigned to a past that is not 'facing the problems of today' (or some such). The problem is not just about the individual 'mission creep' particular to each law but the overall attitude - that society generally gets inured to each and every encroachment so that it doesn't really notice them. I completely agree, and I agree with Bicks as well. I was addressing the point of view that I percieved was being put across, that the highly capable technology was in essence a bad thing. I don't think it is. I don't trust Gov'ts or agencies to use technology as they ideally should, or to pass appropriate laws respecting civil liberties any more than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 The police officer who pushed/killed Ian Tomlinson has been cleared of manslaughter. A police officer who hit Ian Tomlinson with a baton and pushed him to the ground at the G20 protests has been found not guilty of manslaughter. PC Simon Harwood, 45, of south London, denied the manslaughter, in April 2009, of Mr Tomlinson, 47, on the grounds that he used reasonable force. Mr Tomlinson, was pushed as he walked away from a police line in the City of London. He later collapsed and died. His family said they would be pursuing the case in a civil court. It is not clear if that will be against PC Harwood as an individual or against the Metropolitan Police. "After the unlawful killing verdict at the inquest last year, we expected to hear a guilty verdict - not a not guilty verdict and it really hurts," Mr Tomlinson's stepson Paul King, said outside the court. "It's not the end, we are not giving up for justice for Ian." Members of Mr Tomlinson's family cried in the public gallery as the verdict was delivered at Southwark Crown Court. PC Harwood, in the dock, and his wife, in the public gallery, also cried. The jury of five men and seven women had considered their verdict for four days. During the trial, the police officer accepted he was "wrong" to have hit and pushed Mr Tomlinson. He said that, had he realised at the time that Mr Tomlinson was walking away from police lines, he "would not have gone near him". Father-of-nine Mr Tomlinson, who was a heavy drinker who had slept rough for a number of years, walked 75 yards before he collapsed. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has said PC Harwood will face internal Met Police disciplinary proceedings later in the year over his actions. From BBC News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Yeah, two of his fellow orifices were called as witnesses for the defence. Details of his chequered past were not admissable as evidence. The lesson, if it needed to be taught: Whatever the circumstances, individuals will always come off second best when up against those endowed with Authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I thought it was the correct verdict, from the bits I heard on the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 19, 2012 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2012 To be fair to the policeman who killed Ian Tomlinson there was absolutely no evidence, apart from that film of him doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts