Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

I personally find facial recognition scary no matter where it’s used despite having ‘nothing to fear’.  Use in countries with dubious human rights records, against people simply protesting scares the hell out of me.  For systems like this to be acceptable you have to have complete faith in your government and also your future governments.  I wonder if we were sitting in Hong Kong or Moscow whether we’d still be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, General Zod said:

I personally find facial recognition scary no matter where it’s used despite having ‘nothing to fear’.  Use in countries with dubious human rights records, against people simply protesting scares the hell out of me.  For systems like this to be acceptable you have to have complete faith in your government and also your future governments.  I wonder if we were sitting in Hong Kong or Moscow whether we’d still be happy.

Spot on, “big brother syndrome “.

we have the most cctv cameras in the world and yet we have one of worst crimes committed.

its all about control to give you an impression your free and secured when it’s the opposite 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I know- went Roma-Inter and had to do just that in August 2017!

Think they've got slightly wider issues in their game though, also throw in a bit of typical Italian bureaucracy and the 2 combined account for that.

Still can't say I'm pro facial recognition at football- perhaps even in general.

I bought two tickets at stadium in Vienna for Austria v Wales, three years ago and we had to show passports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, old_eastender said:

FFS, those individuals who are making racist remarks, or monkey noises, or those thumping another spectator because he/she is supporting the other team - then I hope facial recognition is in place and helps put you in the dock to face justice. As for the 90% law abiding citizens we have nothing to fear.

Where’s the data held, how safe is it from being nicked for other reasons?  What are they actually using it for?  Who might it be sold to?

Thin end of the wedge if you ask me,  CCTV is looked at in the event of a complaint, face recognition data stores information that can be mined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RumRed said:

face recognition data stores information that can be mined.

From a professional perspective I can assure you it's easier to generate useful data as to where you were at any given point in time via your mobile telephone or smart TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

From a professional perspective I can assure you it's easier to generate useful data as to where you were at any given point in time via your mobile telephone or smart TV.

Not if you put measures in place ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can request any personal data (cctv) that’s held by the police or any other private corporation under DPA and GDPR 2018. And ask for that personal data to be destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facial recognition is the way ahead. Tickets and season cards will no longer exist as your face will be your season ticket. There will be no more passing a season card to someone else to borrow for a match. The only way someone other than the registered season ticket holder will gain admittance will be if the season ticket holder agrees to be decapitated and their head is brought to the ground to be recognized. And that is unlikely to happen unless it's a really massive game. Even then anyone carrying a head is bound to get stopped by the bag checkers before even reaching the turnstiles.

Of course, there is nothing to stop someone who has died naturally and has a season ticket from having their head removed so it can be bought on eBay to increase the value of their estate. I just hope these people will then have the good grace to put the head under their seat so as not to alarm fellow spectators. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nothing to hide nothing to fear argument is one I tend to lazily follow; at the end of the day it holds up most of the time in a country such as the UK. But when you think of it, the argument doesn't really hold weight.

The issue is, the acceleration of technologies that increase in surveillance and the collection of data on individuals are tools. The people who buy these technologies, and the people who use them, can change pretty drastically in a short space of time. I know I'd certainly be questioning the implementation of them if I was in Chile or Hong Kong at the moment. Not only this, remember, the software developers that create the algorithms for these complex softwares are people; often people who work for one company, with subjective opinions, feelings and backgrounds - even benign looking tools will have been built on prejudices that aren't immediately obvious, and ones we don't necesarily understand.

Sure , use them at the footy in 2019 at your Saturday 3pm kickoff, but treat it with the slight trepidation it deserves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, General Zod said:

I personally find facial recognition scary no matter where it’s used despite having ‘nothing to fear’.  Use in countries with dubious human rights records, against people simply protesting scares the hell out of me.  For systems like this to be acceptable you have to have complete faith in your government and also your future governments.  I wonder if we were sitting in Hong Kong or Moscow whether we’d still be happy.

we're doomed captain mainwaring we're doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Shtanley said:

I would kick up a real fuss if the club even '"trialed" it for one game. 

"If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" , what a load of bollocks. 

 

Agree, to say “nothing to worry about” is a delinquent thoughtless statement.

Many people in recent times have come to serious consequences for not questioning authorities behaviour because of nothing to worry about. The list are endless and just to name one Grenfell Towers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Greatgraham said:

Agree, to say “nothing to worry about” is a delinquent thoughtless statement.

Many people in recent times have come to serious consequences for not questioning authorities behaviour because of nothing to worry about. The list are endless and just to name one Grenfell Towers

Yeah I do have to agree.

Wasn't totally sure about my personal opinions on stop and search until I saw a fact that said 97% of them result in nothing. Punishing everyone to stop the few. 

 

Not a massive fan of his podcast but Joe Rogan had Edward Snowden on it recently.

Quite an alarming insight into the world of mass surveillance and why we need to be made more aware of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A few months ago I posted about it on the policing football thread.

Maybe it should be merged into that thread, but maybe it's worth a thread in its own right.

Swansea v Cardiff the other week...will we see it soon at AG?

Actually, something about it today in fact.

 

Not.a.chance. 
 

our stewards are too busy terrorising us to undo our bl00dy coats on a cold, rainy day!!!! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Robbored said:

And what benefit to that particular scenario would facial recognition technology have had?  

You know exactly what I was referring to.

People who do nothing wrong DO have something to worry about, but you as per usual, are being a dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The % of mistaken identity is huge.

You could soon be sent down using this tech which has a huge margin of error.

 

Have a think about how many mistakes the US military made hitting civilian weddings for example, based on 'facial recon'

 

George Orwell was such a visionary - the Proles ARE too bloody stupid to pose a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RedLionLad said:

You know exactly what I was referring to.

People who do nothing wrong DO have something to worry about, but you as per usual, are being a dick.

Explain RRL.......I, and I’m sure others have nothing to hide so in what way does facial recognition impose upon my way of life? I don’t do anything illegal so why the furore over FR?

I posted yesterday that every town and City has CCTV watching every move and I don’t see people complaining about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, old_eastender said:

FFS, those individuals who are making racist remarks, or monkey noises, or those thumping another spectator because he/she is supporting the other team - then I hope facial recognition is in place and helps put you in the dock to face justice. As for the 90% law abiding citizens we have nothing to fear.

I'm sure black or Jewish people had nothing to fear pre Holocaust when signing identification forms.

We may currently live in a 'safe' country but peace will not last forever. 

The next world war will be used with modern technology.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, myol'man said:

Try getting into a football match in Italy.

Italian nationals have to show an id card & foreigners have to show a passport to buy a ticket and to enter the stadium.

 

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I know- went Roma-Inter and had to do just that in August 2017!

Think they've got slightly wider issues in their game though, also throw in a bit of typical Italian bureaucracy and the 2 combined account for that.

Still can't say I'm pro facial recognition at football- perhaps even in general.

Must depend on the club, I went to the Milan derby in October last year and didn't have to show any sort of ID!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Greatgraham said:

You can request any personal data (cctv) that’s held by the police or any other private corporation under DPA and GDPR 2018. And ask for that personal data to be destroyed.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RedLionLad said:

Denham didn't find any malpractice rather identified an issue in respect of legislation not being able to keep pace with technology. For example, the IPA (2016) was initially devised several years earlier when 'communications data' meant phones and faxes. Today there are few devices sold that do not create such data and that's not just additionally TVs and smart speakers, you've cars, watches, fitbits, satnav, lights, taps, fridges, toasters , toothbrushes,  the list is pretty endless. When the law was drafted none of these assets were considered hence the number of cases where the law has had to be interpreted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 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.

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...