Submitted by Gari_305 t3_yfotlr in Futurology
Comments
FuturologyBot t1_iu4isry wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the Article
>A team from the University of Cambridge’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy created the new audit tool to evaluate “compliance with the law and national guidance” around issues such as privacy, equality, and freedom of expression and assembly.
>
>Based on the findings, published in a new report, the experts are joining calls for a ban on police use of facial recognition in public spaces.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yfotlr/uk_police_fail_to_meet_legal_and_ethical/iu4eo7p/
doctorwhy88 t1_iu4jcvf wrote
The country which exemplifies the book 1984 is being questioned on police ethics. Color me shocked.
I suppose it’s better than America where the police turn minorities and marginalized groups into a shooting range for target practice.
Deranged_Kitsune t1_iu4se3e wrote
And police will fail totally to do anything about it.
OnewheelerJelle t1_iu4wgd5 wrote
I thought I was looking ar a grainy Jar Jar Binks photo
ChildrenAreOurDoom t1_iu4wlxi wrote
> I suppose it’s better than America where the police turn minorities and marginalized groups into a shooting range for target practice.
More white people are killed in the US by police. They kill everyone.
Kellogg_Serial t1_iu4yhgm wrote
There are more white people than black people by a large margin, black people are disproportionately policed and therefore more likely to be victims of police brutality
Hades_adhbik t1_iu5irj3 wrote
BLM rioters, went too far, but I think we sometimes miss that it is important to watch what police are doing. It is important for officers to have oversight. We don't want a police state.
TheBestMePlausible t1_iu5x9dv wrote
Gatekeeping being murdered by the police ftw
doctorwhy88 t1_iu64lic wrote
Can’t say I worry about being shot reaching for my wallet during a traffic stop, and that’s entirely because I have the safe skin color.
Otherwise, I’d have to worry that my kids won’t see me again because I missed a stop sign during a “bad apple’s” watch.
tricoloredduck1 t1_iu696cc wrote
Well that’s a shocker! The police any police behaving as if the rules don’t apply to them. Show of hands who didn’t see this coming?
Clarkeprops t1_iu6ihyu wrote
It’s important tech. Can’t we give it to a non profit third party privacy rights group so the guy that abducted a child can be found in time?
pinkfootthegoose t1_iu6xapr wrote
You aRE MORE LiKelY to gEt SuN BuRNed durINg The DAy.
New_Parsley6211 t1_iu724zp wrote
When I saw that the UK literally had Big Brother posters placed on trams systems was eye opening.
everygoodnamehasgone t1_iu772oo wrote
They are more likely to have a run in with police because they statistically commit a disproportionate number of crimes. 13% of the population commit over 50% of the murders, what do you expect the police to do just let an arbitrary number get away with criminality because they're black? Should they police proportionally based on population demographics rather than policing criminals equally?
Kyosw21 t1_iu79qbo wrote
Don’t forget the 2 unjustified unarmed black men being shot in 2019
Vs the 37 unjustified unarmed white men shot in 2019
But that’s just me, realizing that’s roughly the same % of unarmed unjustified of each compared to population
LolcatP t1_iu7o6d1 wrote
that's because there's more white people in America
[deleted] t1_iu7prgb wrote
[removed]
Failninjaninja t1_iu7q902 wrote
I agree. The people who say they are “disproportionately policed” are ridiculous. Where do they think most crime occurs?
The odds of dying by homicide for black males is 37/100k a year, for the average American it is 6/100k. 6x higher - we also know most crime is same race on race. Like ffs the data is there for people to see.
Source: https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/what-are-chances-becoming-homicide-victim
[deleted] t1_iu7zgtn wrote
[removed]
Balauronix t1_iu80c8n wrote
We just visited and every 5 mins in the trains it was like "See something, say something". Sounded like the communist propaganda the US had in the 50-60s. It was jarring. The whole time was thinking, how about you everybody mind their own fucking business, eh?
notgoneyet t1_iu83ard wrote
> They applied their ethical and legal standards to three uses of facial recognition technology
A huge problem in research is that there isn't an agreed ethical standard for facial recognition research. Who draws the line on what's okay and what's not?
Animal recognition to track populations and aid conservation - fine right? But tweak it so you're tracking "potential agitators" and you've got an authoritarian tool.
A_Harmless_Fly t1_iu85d7c wrote
Look younger, have a old beater of a car... you won't feel all that safe. Guns sometimes come out when you tell them the window is broken and doesn't go down.
People often overlook how much wealth goes into profiling.
SquidgeyBear t1_iu86a0j wrote
See something, say something, is more of an anti terrorism campaign, we brits typically keep our noses out of other people's business especially on trains
uclm t1_iu87byl wrote
Now ask yourself why that is. If you have been systematically kept down by your own country of course you’re more likely to be driven into crime
LocalInactivist t1_iu89ckd wrote
“Do we have an ID on the perp?”
“Yes, sir. It appears to be a duck.”
boomshacklington t1_iu8an0u wrote
"Black people more than three times as likely as white people to be killed during a police encounter"
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/blacks-whites-police-deaths-disparity/
gamingthrowawway2021 t1_iu8avys wrote
And the UK refuses to abandon this project. The culture here in the UK is that the police are trustworthy, especially when compared to the US where systemic racism is acted upon on a more terrible scale.
mctrials23 t1_iu8cvge wrote
That doesn’t help your policing right now though. You need to fix the root cause but you cannot just ignore the current reality because there is a reason for it.
[deleted] t1_iu8fcf7 wrote
[deleted]
LongAndShortOfIt888 t1_iu8hqoj wrote
That's a right wing government for you
notgoneyet t1_iu8jxmm wrote
For all the ranting and raving about police states and big brothers, the UK pop seem to love the idea of ankle tagging reprobates and being surveilled (sp?) wherever we go
WeGotAHulk t1_iu8kq07 wrote
While I agree the tech needs oversight this is a bit of a non article.
They have only used 3 instances to assess and the metric is completely made up by the university, a different think tank could come up with a different metric and find it passed their test.
So in short a very small sample size and 1 groups opinion on what is legal and ethical.
alexmbrennan t1_iu8n0se wrote
>The whole time was thinking, how about you everybody mind their own fucking business, eh?
OK, I will turn around and not call the police or an ambulance when you are being stabbed to death because it's none of my business.
alexmbrennan t1_iu8nuvx wrote
That's not how this works - what do you plan to do with the facial recognition technology when you only have the camera in your smartphone?
That kind of technology is only useful if you are the government with the funds to set up millions of cameras.
Youngsweppy t1_iu8qxyi wrote
Why are these talking points still regurgitated? There are absolute statistical reasons that lead to this reality.
Could underlying/historical reasons lead to some of the circumstances of the disproportionate crime rates between communities? Sure. Does that change the fact that the crime needs to be addressed? Not at all.
Of course a city with 400+ murders a year is going to see more police contact than a city that has fewer than 1 or 2.
doctorwhy88 t1_iu8udfk wrote
>facts
Not in any way, shape, or form. They’re beliefs people like you cling to because they’re a safe space to live in. Don’t have to change your views if you don’t learn anything new.
See the Harvard study in the other comment, for example.
doctorwhy88 t1_iu8uils wrote
If you equate calling an ambulance with reporting your neighbor for everything you can, the problem is you.
doctorwhy88 t1_iu8uwf2 wrote
It does, because aggressive policing without addressing the other social problems reinforces those problems.
And, how many of those “crimes” are nonviolent drug crimes? As a follow-up, does locking someone up for those crimes and giving them a criminal record increase or decrease their likelihood to reoffend?
doctorwhy88 t1_iu8v3nd wrote
Problem is, you have the right-wing side and the also-right-wing side. And the not-nearly-as-right-wing-but-kinda.
mctrials23 t1_iu8w0ah wrote
Well this is the issue. It’s not that simple. Being soft on drug sellers and users makes a community worse. Ignoring crime because it’s committed by a certain group doesn’t remove that crime. A multi faceted approach is needed but you can’t ignore soft crime as that brings a whole community down and is linked to harder crimes.
Failninjaninja t1_iu9715r wrote
They absolutely aren’t “inherently” more violent. However the culture in many “black neighborhoods” is inherently violent. This is why Nigerian black households have much much much lower crime rates than other black Americans. It is culture not genetics. Having a culture that glorifies violence, never looking soft, that has dim views on snitching and doesn’t put a high value on education and you have a recipe for higher rates of violence, crime and resisting arrest. However when you see some cultural groups (like Nigerians) who do put an emphasis on education and have children in two parent homes you see educational attainment rates higher than whites and crime levels significantly lower.
usgrant7977 t1_iu9hy9e wrote
Truth. Be white, and drive a shitty car through a rich neighborhood. See what happens.
Overall-Dark-4180 t1_iu9lnio wrote
The police are not shooting people en masse. The data does not back that up. The studies show that police are more likely to tazer or handcuff black suspects, but are NOT more likely to shoot black suspects during any given encounter.
doctorwhy88 t1_iu9nj1j wrote
A study posted in this thread says otherwise. Post your studies and I’ll consider it.
doctorwhy88 t1_iu9nn4n wrote
So instead, we’ll increase crime through policing efforts.
Overall-Dark-4180 t1_iu9ztgu wrote
Thank you for the reasonable response.
"On balance, these data and studies rebut the most extreme accusations of racial bias, in which police officers are thought to be killing nonthreatening black men with astounding frequency. But research continues as to whether there is some detectable level of bias in the nationwide data,..."
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/verbruggen-fatal-police-shootings
LexVex02 t1_iua9d1q wrote
Not if everyone has access to the millions of cameras you're talking about. Also I don't care how the system works. It doesn't work for most people at its current set up anyway. I want a better system that is loyal to the individual. Different tribalism has just separated people more. We all need a super intelligent AI that is designed for your specific needs.
Terralips t1_iucr10v wrote
Edit: Getting threats of a ban even though the mods cannot prove I said anything offensive.
Z3r0sama2017 t1_iudkzsa wrote
We love our cctv here. Popped into the local newsagents because we had ran out of milk this morning and saw they had popped up even more cameras. Store can't be more than 1000sqf but I counted 16 inside and 3 more outside, never mind the ones I probably missed.
I did retail as a part time job go get through uni and was blown away when I learned the true reason. You think its an arms race with thieves to stop them stealing, but its your fellow traders your competing with, to make everyone else appear a softer target in comparison so they don't even bother and hit someone else.
[deleted] t1_iue0pht wrote
[deleted]
doctorwhy88 t1_iue3fc2 wrote
As was the Patriot Act in America. That’s literally how the See Something Say Something policies started in 1984 as well.
doctorwhy88 t1_iue3m4s wrote
Every store in America has them aimed at the employees, plus maybe a few aimed elsewhere purely for liability reasons.
They have insurance for theft. The cameras are for a different purpose.
Gari_305 OP t1_iu4eo7p wrote
From the Article
>A team from the University of Cambridge’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy created the new audit tool to evaluate “compliance with the law and national guidance” around issues such as privacy, equality, and freedom of expression and assembly.
>
>Based on the findings, published in a new report, the experts are joining calls for a ban on police use of facial recognition in public spaces.