Facial Recognition at Football- will we see it at AG?

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Not any (there's loads of personal  information that may be retained for lawful reason,) and it's a catch-22. To have info redacted one has first to identify oneself, after which that creates a record showing who and why such redaction took place.

Not lawful it’s legal reason unless it’s criminal they are not to retain it.

with respect you need to do your due diligence on the matter and not to support that they (the police in this matter) have a right when they don’t.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Edit.

[old_eastender]

Two simple questions for the snowflakes complaining about civil liberties in respect of the police using facial recognition...

1. Suppose your granny is mugged while out shopping. Police can use facial recognition to apprehend and charge the culprits, alternatively they can't identify the culprits who will then no doubt go on to mug more old ladies. Do you want them to use it or not?

2. Suppose you are attending a football match with your 10 year old child, somebody steps out from a mob of opposition's fans and punches you to the ground in front of your child.  Police can use facial recognition to apprehend and charge the culprit, alternatively the can't identify him. Do you want them to use it or not?

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Opens the door to shit like this 

Or further reading, this

What makes me laugh is a poster persistently moaning about being asked to open their coat on search procedure, yet involved in helping to develop what is in the wrong hands- and possibly even moderate hands- potentially deeply oppressive technology!

[BTRFTG]

32 minutes ago, Greatgraham said:

Not lawful it’s legal reason unless it’s criminal they are not to retain it.

with respect you need to do your due diligence on the matter and not to support that they (the police in this matter) have a right when they don’t.

 

Just about wrong on all counts. Firstly, it's not just Police who may lawfully hold information assets (their legal use depends upon how and why such assets are extracted and deployed.) Secondly, proscribed authorities may hold a range of data none of which in itself may be referenced to an assured criminal act but which when conjoined may be used in the prevention of criminal enterprise.

[1bristolcity]

17 hours ago, Coxy27 said:

I'm not sure it really showed anything to be honest. Amazing show and a great watch, but it's fiction, not reality.

Well facial recognition is real, not sure this show was anything other than some fantasist writer earning an easy payday from the BBC. The story line was poor and the casting was equally poor. imo.

[BTRFTG]

50 minutes ago, Greatgraham said:

Wrong, they have already identified you and you have the “right to be forgotten” and “no consent” GDPR 32 and 43; (consent) and 63.

 

Given the initial reference was made to facial recognition at football matches how might they have identified me the hundreds of times I've been filmed over the years? Where's this magical database if facial imagery? How come we see police appeals for identification of football thugs, using decent quality images, when from your argument they already know who they are?

[redsince1994]

Anyone saying "Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear" should be banned from having curtains.

[1bristolcity]

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Opens the door to shit like this 

Or further reading, this

What makes me laugh is a poster persistently moaning about being asked to open their coat on search procedure, yet involved in helping to develop what is in the wrong hands- and possibly even moderate hands- potentially deeply oppressive technology!

Of course oppressive regimes might use this technology, but we are talking football stadiums here that witness higher than average assaults on the person. Why on Earth would you view this other than an aid to keep you and yours safer? Your original post was regarding football stadiums, not humans rights in China.

[BTRFTG]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Opens the door to shit like this 

Or further reading, this

What makes me laugh is a poster persistently moaning about being asked to open their coat on search procedure, yet involved in helping to develop what is in the wrong hands- and possibly even moderate hands- potentially deeply oppressive technology!

I assume you make reference to myself.

If so, be so gracious as to note I did not 'persistently moan about being asked to open my coat', rather I highlighted the utter pointlessness of the exercise as deployed at AG.

Its true I've been one of many thousands involved in protecting the public from a whole raft of dangers, most you'll never know about,  save there are thousands going about their daily business today who wouldn't be able to had not brave souls risked their own to keep us protected.

The irony is when things slip through its the bleeding heart liberals who scream and squeel loudest. Thankfully, they also tend to be technophillic, thick and with short memories.

[Moulin Rougier]

Not seen anyone mention actually how the police have said this will be used at football matches. As in this is only supposed to used to identify people who have police banning orders. So people with prior issues.

So how this should work at football is:

- Photos of people with banning orders are loaded into software and their faces are mapped

- Cameras scan faces, looking for pre-mapped faces

- Faces compared and flagged to police if a match occurs

- Where no matches occur or a match is wrong, those images/data are deleted immediately.

They shouldn't be taking continuous video to use later or store etc.

At least thats my understanding!

[BTRFTG]

15 minutes ago, redsince1994 said:

Anyone saying "Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear" should be banned from having curtains.

Curtains aren't just for hiding. I wouldn't wish my worst neighbour the sight of me rising from my pit first thing in the morning....

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I assume you make reference to myself.

If so, be so gracious as to note I did not 'persistently moan about being asked to open my coat', rather I highlighted the utter pointlessness of the exercise as deployed at AG.

Its true I've been one of many thousands involved in protecting the public from a whole raft of dangers, most you'll never know about,  save there are thousands going about their daily business today who wouldn't be able to had not brave souls risked their own to keep us protected.

The irony is when things slip through its the bleeding heart liberals who scream and squeel loudest. Thankfully, they also tend to be technophillic, thick and with short memories.

Apologies- posted it in a hurry.

Pointless...maybe? You're best placed to discuss it I guess. I'm interested to know what you would recommend on search procedure though- and though that may sound facetious, it isn't! My suggestion would be a handheld wand search for all as well as bag checks, or a pat down for all- with obvious consideration as to whether under 16's can be, which I suspect they cannot. Think it's pretty common though, the enhanced searching.

It also enables a bad future Government which admittedly is hypothetical. well it gives them all of the tools they require to be oppressive in the future. This kind of Technology is very easy to misuse...

Assume you are talking about terrorism etc? Unsure about that, the bolded bit- think revulsion and anger- rightly so- would be prevalent among all.

[redsince1994]

I'm also finding it quit entertaining that there is a preconception that those complaining about facial recognition are... ahem... bleeding heart liberals and snowflakes.

Pretty sure opposition to surveillance and government intervention is more of a libertarian viewpoint than liberal (notwithstanding the far left, but I don't think anarchists quite fall under the banner of bleeding heart libs).

[BTRFTG]

26 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm interested to know what you would recommend

Whatever you decide to do it's all or nothing, as in air travel. 

The extent to what you do depends on the risk assessment, which these days at minimum would likely be for metal detectors plus pat down to pick up most blades. Larger, high profile events might also require explosive or fissile material detection.

Or we could also deploy selective technology, as now happens, where Subjects of Operational Interest (the bit Capture did get right) scan for those for whom we should pay closer attention (in this case might also add in footy related subjects.) Capture also got the number of SOIs right, around 3k of them. Rather there are 3k on the present list as that's all the human resource available to track them. There's over 30k who were or should still be on the list but without the human resource to monitor. The Manchester Arena and Parsons Green bombers being two now removed from that latter category. You'll recall after those incidents the do-gooders questioning - 'if they were previously identified why weren't they being watched?' I had the privilege of listening to the commander who ultimately had made the wrong call and how he lives with himself. I also heard him tell the scale of incidents you've never heard of because they never happened, not those planning harm had planned it that way.

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Whatever you decide to do it's all or nothing, as in air travel. 

The extent to what you do depends on the risk assessment, which these days at minimum would likely be for metal detectors plus pat down to pick up most blades. Larger, high profile events might also require explosive or fissile material detection.

Or we could also deploy selective technology, as now happens, where Subjects of Operational Interest (the bit Capture did get right) scan for those for whom we should pay closer attention (in this case might also add in footy related subjects.) Capture also got the number of SOIs right, around 3k of them. Rather there are 3k on the present list as that's all the human resource available to track them. There's over 30k who were or should still be on the list but without the human resource to monitor. The Manchester Arena and Parsons Green bombers being two now removed from that latter category. You'll recall after those incidents the do-gooders questioning - 'if they were previously identified why weren't they being watched?' I had the privilege of listening to the commander who ultimately had made the wrong call and how he lives with himself. I also heard him tell the scale of incidents you've never heard of because they never happened, not those planning harm had planned it that way.

Thanks- an interesting insight.

Risk assessment for football I assume you mean- as in a typical City game for example? Or equivalent event.

Ah yes, screening- is that the layman's term? Something like that anyway IIRC. There's a term for it, which is what you described and it could be screening but I'm sure it was a bit more technical- why don't you write to the club with some suggestions, FWIW? 

Incidentally, I am sure they are looking for more and much more mundane things than the terrorism and blades issue too when doing these searches- you only have to look at Ground Regs to see the list of prohibited items, open coat and bag checks will be looking for these too.Can of any kind, a glass bottle, alcohol of any kind just 3 of these! Plus also pyrotechnic or similar devices.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Just about wrong on all counts. Firstly, it's not just Police who may lawfully hold information assets (their legal use depends upon how and why such assets are extracted and deployed.) Secondly, proscribed authorities may hold a range of data none of which in itself may be referenced to an assured criminal act but which when conjoined may be used in the prevention of criminal enterprise.

Your wrong, seems you may be a policeman(wo), ive already successfully diminish your argument with the police and other corporation.

for your record the police are not the law they are there to uphold it.

to be blunt your talking rubbish.

there is no more to be add to this conversation.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Given the initial reference was made to facial recognition at football matches how might they have identified me the hundreds of times I've been filmed over the years? Where's this magical database if facial imagery? How come we see police appeals for identification of football thugs, using decent quality images, when from your argument they already know who they are?

You haven’t a clue what your talking about.

i repeat study DPA and GDPR it will enlighten you. But I think you are part of problem to protect the corrupt establishment such as the police (state).

no more to said but wake up

[RedLionLad]

If they introduce facial recognition at the Mem won't the Police get confused when Uncle John's details keep popping up for everyone?

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, RedLionLad said:

If they introduce facial recognition at the Mem won't the Police get confused when Uncle John's details keep popping up for everyone?

I see you’re being a dick again  RRL.............

[RedLionLad]

16 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I see you’re being a dick again  RRL.............

You're not related to Uncle John by any chance are you?

He's a lonely minibus driver too.

[RedLionLad]

.....but then, he lives in Nailsea

[JulieH]

3 hours ago, Moulin Rougier said:

Not seen anyone mention actually how the police have said this will be used at football matches. As in this is only supposed to used to identify people who have police banning orders. So people with prior issues.

So how this should work at football is:

- Photos of people with banning orders are loaded into software and their faces are mapped

- Cameras scan faces, looking for pre-mapped faces

- Faces compared and flagged to police if a match occurs

- Where no matches occur or a match is wrong, those images/data are deleted immediately.

They shouldn't be taking continuous video to use later or store etc.

At least thats my understanding!l

When i worked the champions League Final in Cardiff that is exactly what we were briefed.

I understood if a match occurs then it gives us a reason to stop and talk to that person to further identify or not. It is only at this point that any direct action is taken.

For discussion also, I have identified somene from afar as being subject of a football banning order at a football match, causing police to stop  him until i got up close and found it not to be the person! Lots of apologies and the person luckily was quite amused . It happens without the use of technology as well

[BRISTOL86]

It certainly would have helped the ref in the WBA v Charlton game where he sent the wrong player off!

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, JulieH said:

For discussion also, I have identified somene from afar as being subject of a football banning order at a football match, causing police to stop  him until i got up close and found it not to be the person!

Or we could have excellent policing of the form delivered for years by our bearded constable ( never did get to know his name despite decades of conversation.)

Half time chat at Meadow Lane when he breaks off to grab a lad walking past:

"You're still subject to a banning order and I should be nicking you..."

"Sorry, I'll keep my head down..."

" You will, and put your hood up so I can't see you - now get lost on the terrace and keep out of trouble....

[BTRFTG]

2 hours ago, Greatgraham said:

You haven’t a clue what your talking about.

i repeat study DPA and GDPR it will enlighten you. But I think you are part of problem to protect the corrupt establishment such as the police (state).

no more to said but wake up

Such accusation has been made before. I am, however, au fait with the English language.....

[Major Isewater]

At the Mem it will be Faecal recognition .