It's funny but the whole shoplifting thing (and worse), which is also happening in the US in major cities right now, and this seeming protection of criminals, reminds me of something I read in the Gulag Archipelago. Criminals were often given a lot of leeway in the gulags because they were an effective way of demoralizing the other inmates, and keeping them in line.
Are you guys over there frogs in a pot of boiling water or what?? You are ALREADY a surveillance state with CCTV far beyond us in America. We both are already surveillance states without that, given the mass surveillance of civilians otherwise. But with CCTV??? Obviously, having cameras on every corner qualified you as a surveillance state. The idea that doesn't already make you a surveillance state, let alone the mass surveillance otherwise, is nonsense. This title is Pollyanna, to the maximum. "Next surveillance state"??? You are, behind China, the leader in being a surveillance state. You don't have free speech. You don't have the right to keep and bear arms that makes any real difference in overthrowing the state. You are barely free, at this point! JFC, people...wake up!
There's more to this discussion than meets the eye. Recently Daniel Khalife escaped prison and there was speculation that he had inside help to escape. Then he was captured 4 days later and the police and intelligence services admit they tested facial recognition and other technologies to track him down despite his military training. This was the test and they feel like they have the green light to role this out wholesale now.
All if the feminist 'we don't feel safe, we don't feel comfortable, we don't trust the police' narratives will be met with the solution of ubiquitous surveillance (monitored by AI of course)
What on Earth is the point of fines in these cases, these media companies have a licence to print money, the more they're fined, the more they put up their prices. It's completely stupid and they couldn't care less.
Unfortunately Benthem's dream of a Panopticon was seeded into the institutional mind of the British State Centuries ago & it has long been a feature not a bug.
With regard to social media companies being "requested" by Governments to take down posts, if the companies feel they have to comply with the requests, they could at least make public the requests. Or do the Governments not allow the requests to be published? Censorship is all very well, but the rules on what is and is not allowed must be made clear!
Pre-internet the authorities had to obtain a warrant to tap a phone. It never crossed anyone's mind to tap the entire phone system which would have been pointless because tracking crime often involves looking for a needle in a haystack. Tracking everyone means looking for a needle in a million haystacks.
I have seen Silkie on Triggernometry and various other channels. She is great and, of course, right about everything. But I think it's all too late. We have lived in a surveillance society for many years now. Despite this, and as others point out below. the police are singularly useless at using all this surveillance to tackle shoplifting and various other crimes.
Interesting point on police not acting on existing CCTV when crimes are committed. A couple of weeks back BBC Look North ran several stories about travellers invading Boston causing the market to be cancelled and shops closed, mainly because of shop lifting including one shop that had several thousands £ in mobile phones taken with clear CCTV of the culprits but the police took no action.
@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391 Now there's a blast from the past. I remember Mike being the main host and doing the "Learn yourself Geordie" spot. The Look North I see in my part of the World covers the Humber area to Spalding and is hosted by Peter Levy.
I love it we have free speech because ,I don't believe there is any need for clmate alarm and CO2 is not evil. I know a man cannot be a woman, I think Ukraine should negotiate for peace and I think our country must control its Borders immediately.
Thank you so much for discussing the dangers of this Bill. We need to relay this media-wide to debate the pros and cons before King Charles signs it off. Why was this quietly passed by the Commons and Lords without airing it in the media and internet in all its gory detail?
@@funnyflix895 This bill is about losing human rights and democracy, of course society is shittin themselves. There are other ways to handle criminals than this. The Goverment will no doubt get corrupted by this bill as it would give them absolute power over the people. If you feel uncomfortable in the west, my advice is to move to china.
The way the lunatics are taking over the asylum, I bloody hope so. Give police evidence of the current shoplifting epidemic, knife crime etc. No, I won't have smart in my house, do I have cctv for the yard, too right I do.
Whilst I agree with almost all the points raised in this conversation, facial recognition has been completely misrepresented. I was (not quite literally) shouting at the screen: "but it does not work". Thankfully, Silkie Carlo did eventually say the technology has a 90% failure rate, and then Winston said it was therefore useless and loads of public money was being wasted. In reality, the failure figures are way higher than 90%. As far as I am aware (I used to work with Police Forces on facial recognition) there has never been a successful detection "in the wild". That's not to say the technology hasn't had an impact, in that once the local low-life hear that facial recognition is being used, the local crime rate magically decreases and, unfortunately, increases in the neighbouring boroughs! I'm sure this is controversial, but if facial recognition did work, I would have no problem with its use, provided it was implemented in the way it is always claimed to be. That is, taking a live video feed, scanning for faces, checking the faces against a criminal database and then storing the matches. Images of all non-matches would be immediately discarded. To me, this is much better than the current cctv implementations where the entire video stream is recorded for an extended period, the security of which is the responsibility of the person in charge of the convenience store, nightclub, school etc.
Yep, even with posed pictures it's only useful when being supplemented by a human user (i.e. the tech is useful in that a good picture can be used to being up similar faces which can then be manually sorted through.)
@@jdg9999 Exactly. Also, it's quite easy to, mathematically, prove that there is not enough variability in a human face to distinguish one from another, once you go beyond a population of a few thousand. It's all snake oil, but it makes the suppliers of face recognition systems very rich which, being positive, helps the global economy ticking over!
I'm with 💯, the opportunity to have a few with so much power is a frightening thought. Not to mention applications we can't even imagine at this point in time.
