[London Riots] Help work out how to do facial recognition on the police photos(groups.google.com)
groups.google.com
[London Riots] Help work out how to do facial recognition on the police photos
http://groups.google.com/group/london-riots-facial-recognition
27 comments
What inspired this idea? Most people would just leave these sort of efforts to the police. I'm not judging, I'm a journalist and I'm legitimately curious.
I just hate to see technology lying around doing nothing when it could genuinely help the situation. We have the data, we have the technology. Let's put the two together and actually help the situation, rather than sitting around moaning.
The police cannot use these methods, I believe, so if the public can do it for them to help narrow down inquiries, then surely that's a good thing.
I think it's important to point out that a system like this would be to close the net, not to be used as evidence.
The police cannot use these methods, I believe, so if the public can do it for them to help narrow down inquiries, then surely that's a good thing.
I think it's important to point out that a system like this would be to close the net, not to be used as evidence.
Just sent you an email.
So you're saying use technology to treat the symptoms and ignore the cause? Retribution rather than prevention?
Help your neighbours, not the police, then shit like this wouldn't happen. People are so ready to delegate responsibility for everything to technology and a "higher authority" that they forget their own moral responsibility.
As for using it to identify people for questioning, it is strictly against the DPA to collect this information privately without consent and supply it to the police without a data controller and disclosure policy.
Help your neighbours, not the police, then shit like this wouldn't happen. People are so ready to delegate responsibility for everything to technology and a "higher authority" that they forget their own moral responsibility.
As for using it to identify people for questioning, it is strictly against the DPA to collect this information privately without consent and supply it to the police without a data controller and disclosure policy.
Are you being serious? This is nothing about the cause. Sorting that out is a much deeper issue that needs to be carefully analysed and considered.
You're effectively saying that we shouldn't bother to help bring people to justice.
Also, I would love to see further information about what you say about the DPA (any links?). We're not wanting to bend the law here, we want to work legally. If it turns out that this kind of work is completely unfesable by the law then we will be forced to abandon it.
Please don't turn this into a moral debate between you and myself, I appreciate that not everyone will see the use of technology in this way as a good thing. At the end of the day I'm trying to do something to help here, rather than moan and argue online about it.
You're effectively saying that we shouldn't bother to help bring people to justice.
Also, I would love to see further information about what you say about the DPA (any links?). We're not wanting to bend the law here, we want to work legally. If it turns out that this kind of work is completely unfesable by the law then we will be forced to abandon it.
Please don't turn this into a moral debate between you and myself, I appreciate that not everyone will see the use of technology in this way as a good thing. At the end of the day I'm trying to do something to help here, rather than moan and argue online about it.
What I'm saying is that we should not have let society descent into this chaos by our own ignorance and greed and now we are suffering for it. It's a kind of apathetic karma. And now we're jumping up in the air calling for justice. It's just hypocrisy.
Read this thoroughly, then register as a data controller:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_...
You will be recording and maintaining a database of individual details. You need to provide access to this under DPA SAR regulations to individuals. If you misrepresent the individual, you can and probably will be sued.
Sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing something bad or dangerous.
Oh and if I find out this is going ahead, I'll be ethically required to report you to the ICO.
Read this thoroughly, then register as a data controller:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_...
You will be recording and maintaining a database of individual details. You need to provide access to this under DPA SAR regulations to individuals. If you misrepresent the individual, you can and probably will be sued.
Sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing something bad or dangerous.
Oh and if I find out this is going ahead, I'll be ethically required to report you to the ICO.
How many times have you heard this:
1. This will be misused.
2. But someone else will do it if you don't.
3. Okay I'll do it then.
1. This will be misused.
2. But someone else will do it if you don't.
3. Okay I'll do it then.
If you build it , some one with more ambition will take it from you and misuse it. It might help here, no doubt, but it will be abused. Consider China doing this to identify political deviants. Consider the invention of nukes , and the on going struggle to keep them out of peoples hands who wish to use them. Nothing good will come of this in the long run.
Please do not do this. It compromises people's right to privacy and will artificially incriminate people who may not be participating but are bystanding or trying to get home.
Technology is not the solution - it's part of the cause. Everyone is automatically incriminated. Don't add fuel to the fire.
Technology is not the solution - it's part of the cause. Everyone is automatically incriminated. Don't add fuel to the fire.
Can you expand on your argument against the use of technology in this way?
Nothing here compromises your privacy, and nothing will artificially incriminate you. Everything is already public information.
A system like this would be exactly the same as photos being released to the public by the police (which they have), and then random people ringing up saying "That person might be XYZ" (which also happens).
This would be a simple automation of the process to help filter down who it could potentially be (none of the results would be public). It would be up to the police to work out who should be pursued.
Also, I entirely disagree with your statement that technology is the cause. Riots happened before the Internet and social networks. People would be using phones, radio, and word-of-mouth anyway.
Nothing here compromises your privacy, and nothing will artificially incriminate you. Everything is already public information.
A system like this would be exactly the same as photos being released to the public by the police (which they have), and then random people ringing up saying "That person might be XYZ" (which also happens).
This would be a simple automation of the process to help filter down who it could potentially be (none of the results would be public). It would be up to the police to work out who should be pursued.
Also, I entirely disagree with your statement that technology is the cause. Riots happened before the Internet and social networks. People would be using phones, radio, and word-of-mouth anyway.
No, it is not exactly the same, things have shifted a lot in the last 20 years ago. It used to be "what a police officer happened to see while he was driving down the street in his car", now it is rapidly becoming "what could have a police officer possibly seen at any time and in any location, in all EM wavelengths, tied into massive identifying databases". That is a massive shift in power to the police, its important to proceed cautiously, a free society is much more important than catching criminals.
Nothing like facial recognition would ever be allowed to be used as evidence, especially in the way I envisage it being used here. It's about helping to narrow down the options so the police can get on with their traditional lines of enquiry, like gathering evidence, etc. There is no shift in power to the police, they don't have access to any extra data, just the results.
We need to stop being afraid of the potential uses of technology, we'll never get anywhere that way. Also, I am not claiming that this is a) the right solution, or b) socially acceptable just yet.
We need to tackle those issues, rather than turn away from the technology because of potential futures.
We need to stop being afraid of the potential uses of technology, we'll never get anywhere that way. Also, I am not claiming that this is a) the right solution, or b) socially acceptable just yet.
We need to tackle those issues, rather than turn away from the technology because of potential futures.
Lets take a hypothetical example, say every CCTV camera in London that is available to the police is tied into facial recognition databases, then those results are stored by the police; They then gain a massive database of the movement of people that would otherwise have not been available. The important thing here is that none of this requires additional data. Even if none of this data is in any way admissible in court (it is and has been in the past), that still gives the police massive leverage over knowing innocent (remember innocent until proved guilty ) people's movements, without consent, probably without knowledge. How you can claim an idea like this isnt a shift in power to the police escapes me.
My point entirely. Thank you for such an elegant description.
Thank you for the link, it's important that this issue is discussed in the open rather than people getting scared of the technology and possible repocussions.
However, I also think it's important to note that I am not a lawyer in privacy. I am a developer who wants to help out. I'll leave the legality and policy behind privacy to the professionals.
At the end of the day I would have absolutely no problem with my publicly accessible profile image being used in facial recognition in these circumstances. Imagine if I was a potential witness of something? Is it then OK to use facial recognition in that case?
However, I also think it's important to note that I am not a lawyer in privacy. I am a developer who wants to help out. I'll leave the legality and policy behind privacy to the professionals.
At the end of the day I would have absolutely no problem with my publicly accessible profile image being used in facial recognition in these circumstances. Imagine if I was a potential witness of something? Is it then OK to use facial recognition in that case?
Why using face recognition on witnesses to get them to tell what they know?
If they do want to help the police, they will, if they don't want, how can that help?
And what else than "potential witness" will you identify? None of these pictures could be used as evidence.
And what else than "potential witness" will you identify? None of these pictures could be used as evidence.
HN is definitely full of capitalist muppets if you're downvoting eff privacy. WTF is wrong with you peoople?
I think if you analyse your statements and compare them to a sensible set of morals which put a person above the state, you can answer that question yourself.
Anyone who takes part in this is a fucking fascist. This is not just simple rioting and looting, it is a backlash upon the failed establishment in the UK. The young people can't find jobs and can't afford to go to school. They are poor, hopeless, and destitute; oppressed by the ever growing disparity between who is rich and who is poor. This is probably not a revolution or an uprising, but it is the start of something. People are fed up with government and they aren't going to be able to take it much longer.
So, kids as young as 6/7 are lashing back beacause they can't find jobs....BULL - they're thiefs, they're using any excuse to vanadlise and burn whatefver they can. any technology that can be used should be used, lock up the litttle b'stards
A college friend of mine got charged with inciting a riot by standing on a car and shouting "Don't burn our hood! Go burn some rich folks stuff! Follow me!" According to him they didn't trash his stuff, and that was worth the hassle with the courts.
If your shop or car got torched or your kids are afraid at night, this is probably a great idea. Leveraging public data (photos) and off the shelf technology to at least identify witnesses if not actual participants should be done. If a friend of mine was in that situation and asked for help, I would do everything I could. If a company asked me to consult on designing the solution they could sell, I would probably pass.
I've been working in security, identity and privacy for over a decade and this "ethical" question has loomed since before Orwell. Commercial packages are marketed to law enforcement, today. Instead of disengaging or blindly sending your leads to police, the ethical middle path is a publicly defined framework. Using the riots as the catalyst, there should be public/web/community effort for vetting the most incriminating images, aimed at shaping the rules of public disclosure, law and evidence around facial recognition.
If this makes you queasy, get engaged. Saying "that's bad" or "they're wrong" won't stop those driving the technology solutions forward. Advocacy can keep the situation a little more honest.