Vince Alm: “ The Police This Sunday “

VINNCE ALM:

South Wales Police are looking to trial AFR again this Sunday at the South Wales Derby match.

This is a breach of thousands of people right to privacy, it is also the thin end of the wedge of an advanced surveillance state where your bio metric data will be checked and run through systems. This data can be stored against your knowledge and used in the future against you although the police WILL deny this there is evidence of this already occurring.

Football fans are yet again the guinea pigs for this new technology which has a shocking success rate.

If this technology becomes widespread it will be the beginning of the end of society as we know.

"Smarter recognition safer community" it is a lie!

"Smarter and more policing safer community" is more like the slogan that is required.

The serious criminality the police say they want to prevent by using AFR is a diversion. The serious criminals are already one step ahead of this technology, this will be used for minor offences as time goes like littering, using a mobile phone when driving.

Education and boots on the ground worked for 100s of years, but with all the technology already at their fingertips crime is increasing as both education and boots on the ground decreases from our society.



DO NOT BE FOOLED

If there is enough interest I don't mind organising a protest on Sunday before the game

VINCE ALM

Can Vince/anyone please provide evidence of data being stored by the Police against your knowledge that will be used in the future? What evidence is there to suggest the the Police are going to use such technology for prosecuting people who drop litter, etc? Does that currently happen with all the CCTV coverage we have - no? Perhaps the Police have enough on their hands with all the major crimes that occur without stretching it to such incidents.

Some simple questions:

If you have nothing to hide why are people frightened of being viewed on camera?

CCTV in this country has not only been a huge deterrent in crime prevention but it has hugely assisted in the prosecution of offenders. Just look at the number of recent terrorist incidents in the UK. CCTV helps to keep people safe. If you are not a criminal why are you against that? Thankfully the vast majority of the public are law abiding and you will probably find that the vast majority support such measures.

There are very strict guidelines in place to ensure that people’s rights are respected throughout the legal system.

Local authorities are to be given laws to prosecute people for throwing litter out car
with cctv being used as evidence. Also cctv is used to prosecute dog fouling.... how long do you reckon it be before other surveillance methods are employed to prosecute people?

Those uses are not Police based but for Local Authorities. Does the prevention/detection of serious crime e.g. terrorism, murder, serious assault, rape etc outweigh the fact that your image may be captured on screen. Come back to the same argument if you have nothing to hide why are people so concerned? Regards Vince’s original post if you are not wanted or on a banning order why are you frightened of POSSIBLY having your image on a screen being monitored by Police as you walk into a football stadium. 99.9% of fans would not fit into this category if any.

its nothing to do with looking for banned fans..who would be either spotted by police or picked up on stadium CCTV anyway.

VINNCE ALM:

South Wales Police are looking to trial AFR again this Sunday at the South Wales Derby match.

This is a breach of thousands of people right to privacy, it is also the thin end of the wedge of an advanced surveillance state where your bio metric data will be checked and run through systems. This data can be stored against your knowledge and used in the future against you although the police WILL deny this there is evidence of this already occurring.

Football fans are yet again the guinea pigs for this new technology which has a shocking success rate.

If this technology becomes widespread it will be the beginning of the end of society as we know.

"Smarter recognition safer community" it is a lie!

"Smarter and more policing safer community" is more like the slogan that is required.

The serious criminality the police say they want to prevent by using AFR is a diversion. The serious criminals are already one step ahead of this technology, this will be used for minor offences as time goes like littering, using a mobile phone when driving.

Education and boots on the ground worked for 100s of years, but with all the technology already at their fingertips crime is increasing as both education and boots on the ground decreases from our society.



DO NOT BE FOOLED

If there is enough interest I don't mind organising a protest on Sunday before the game

VINCE ALM

Can Vince/anyone please provide evidence of data being stored by the Police against your knowledge that will be used in the future? What evidence is there to suggest the the Police are going to use such technology for prosecuting people who drop litter, etc? Does that currently happen with all the CCTV coverage we have - no? Perhaps the Police have enough on their hands with all the major crimes that occur without stretching it to such incidents.

Some simple questions:

If you have nothing to hide why are people frightened of being viewed on camera?

CCTV in this country has not only been a huge deterrent in crime prevention but it has hugely assisted in the prosecution of offenders. Just look at the number of recent terrorist incidents in the UK. CCTV helps to keep people safe. If you are not a criminal why are you against that? Thankfully the vast majority of the public are law abiding and you will probably find that the vast majority support such measures.

There are very strict guidelines in place to ensure that people’s rights are respected throughout the legal system.

Local authorities are to be given laws to prosecute people for throwing litter out car
with cctv being used as evidence. Also cctv is used to prosecute dog fouling.... how long do you reckon it be before other surveillance methods are employed to prosecute people?

Those uses are not Police based but for Local Authorities. Does the prevention/detection of serious crime e.g. terrorism, murder, serious assault, rape etc outweigh the fact that your image may be captured on screen. Come back to the same argument if you have nothing to hide why are people so concerned? Regards Vince’s original post if you are not wanted or on a banning order why are you frightened of POSSIBLY having your image on a screen being monitored by Police as you walk into a football stadium. 99.9% of fans would not fit into this category if any.

What about people who have been stopped because the system got it wrong? That as happened hence the concern about the technology being used, you ask for prove well it is common knowledge faces are being stored without permission it happened in Victoria London by private company with knowledge of met police! It is being stored and without peoples knowledge is that acceptable to you?

Re ‘common knowledge’ can you please quote or attach the article that you are referring to? I note that it’s NOT the Police. Not that I would wish it upon anyone but if someone/a family member or close friend etc were seriously assaulted would you prefer the offender to be identified & convicted by CCTV or left to walk the streets to re offend? I would suggest that the vast majority of law abiding citizens support such technology. The benefits outweigh the worry of walking into a football stadium worrying whether your face has appeared on a screen.

READ IT ALL AND THEN SAY ITS WRONG AND WONT HAPPEN HERE?
Think got location wrong.....

. The Met Police's facial recognition tests are fatally flawed
Police use of facial recognition tech is expanding but largely unregulated. The first independent review of the systems used in London has found major failings

By MATT BURGESS
04 Jul 2019

Facial recognition row: police gave King’s Cross owner images of seven people
Met apologises after local police passed on images for controversial surveillance scheme

Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor
Fri 4 Oct 2019 10.06 EDT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
3 months old
Images of seven people were passed on by local police for use in a facial recognition system at King’s Cross in London in an agreement that was struck in secret, the details of which have been made public for the first time.

A police report, published on Friday by the deputy London mayor, Sophie Linden, showed that the scheme ran for two years from 2016 without any apparent central oversight from either the Metropolitan police or the office of the mayor, Sadiq Khan.


Writing to London assembly members, Linden said she “wanted to pass on the [Metropolitan police service’s] apology” for failing to previously disclose that the scheme existed and announced that similar local image-sharing agreements were now banned.

There had been “no other examples of images having been shared with private companies for facial recognition purposes” by the Met, Linden said, according to “the best of its knowledge and record-keeping”.

Daragh Murray, a senior lecturer at ​the University of Essex​, said he was surprised the Met had not admitted it was supplying images of individuals to King’s Cross at the time the scheme was launched in 2016. “The scheme seems to have been run without appropriate oversight, safeguards, and procedures,” the academic said.


The surveillance scheme – controversial because it involved tracking individuals without their consent – was originally agreed between borough police in Camden and the owner of the 27-hectare King’s Cross site in 2016.

King’s Cross first admitted it had deployed facial identification technology in CCTV cameras in August, prompting an outcry about the ethics and legality of the move. In September, it announced it had abandoned plans to use the technology in the future. It said facial recognition had been used in two cameras on pedestrian boulevards at the heart of the development, with the intention “to help ensure public safety”.

Facial recognition technology maps faces in crowds and compares them to images of people on a watchlist, which can include suspects, missing people and persons of interest to the police. The cameras can scan faces in large crowds in public places such as streets, shopping centres and football crowds.


Last month, the high court ruled that the use of facial recognition software by South Wales police was legal after an office worker had brought a legal action saying the technology harvested too many images of innocent people.

But there have been concerns about the regulatory framework governing facial recognition and its effectiveness, with studies suggesting it is less effective at accurately distinguishing black people. Khan has called for new legislation to regulate the technology.

The Met report said Camden police agreed in 2016 to supply images of individuals who had been “arrested and charged, cautioned or reprimanded or given a formal warning” to King’s Cross between May 2016 and March 2018.

The idea was to help the property company “to discharge its responsibilities to prevent and detect crime”, although it was not further explained how this would be carried out or whether the software was used.


That prompted Murray to ask whether the police could be confident that the image sharing was legitimate. “The grounds on which information was shared - to prevent and detect crime – are overly broad, and really run the risk of arbitrary interfaces with individuals’ rights,” the lecturer said.

No records were kept of whether the facial recognition software successfully recognised any of the seven people whose images were passed on, the Met admitted in the four-page report, or whether any police action followed a match.

Officers in Camden nevertheless came to a new data-sharing agreement with King’s Cross in early 2019, which would have governed any future use of the surveillance technology.

King’s Cross is owned by a consortium comprising the property developer Argent, Hermes Investment Management on behalf of BT Pensioners, and the Australian pension scheme AustralianSuper.

Topics
Facial recognition
PoliceLondonMetropolitan policePrivacyData protectionnews
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via EmailShare on LinkedInShare on PinterestShare on WhatsAppShare on Messe

I'd also like to add the below article relating to the technology our police force are using Sunday which was used at the Champions league final. Look at th figures people!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-sou ... s-44007872

I'd also like to add the below article relating to the technology our police force are using Sunday which was used at the Champions league final. Look at th figures people!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-sou ... s-44007872

If you get stopped by mistake like this you may well have to prove where you were at that time and if cannot what then?:o

Yet nothing is said about the CCTV images being obtained within the stadium by the match day policing team or the tactical officers stood at the front of the stands with a camcorder filming the supporters..... just because they’re putting the Facial Recognition van outside the stadium (and it’s been there on quite a few occasions trying to hide in the car park) then it’s an issue..... nothing seems to be said when it’s used in other areas such as the Elvis Festival down Porthcawl for instance....

Surely everyone looks like Elvis

You’d think so... they’ve picked a few people up from the SWP wanted list in the few years they’ve been using it down there

I suppose that's really what it is for in this case, and to spot fams that are banned, they'll probably get quite a few of those, and stop some going as using this as a deterrent?

It will also act as a deterrent to potential trouble at the game, such as the Swansea fans throwing seats into the family stand!

mate there are more than enough CCTV cameras aimed at the away end to catch anyone stupid enough to do such a thing as it is. and no amount can guarantee it not happening. . but what Vince is talking about here is something different

Cannot be serious! We know swans fans are not the brightest but to think one would rip up a seat in full view of cops and stewards 20ft away is nuts! Maybe 20yrs ago but not in todays environment ...

Yes because they are being filmed they would not do it, even a coin in the midst of a crowd, if they have already been spotted on the facial recognition camera's a quick check and they would be able to identify the coin thrower!

That's the point I was making the more cameras in and around the ground the more of a deterrent, and the less likelihood of trouble. CCTV virtually finished crowd trouble, facial recognition will probably take it a step further and make the authorities aware of everything people do at football and everywhere.

How can looking at a face in the street prevent fan throwing a coin ect ect in ground? Thats what CCTV is for in grounds.. take it step further you get into aggro in street on a Saturday night and cops arrest you take picture put you on their data base everytime you go football, you could be stopped from going because you did something totally unrelated to football but they have your face on their data bank! that is the reality of facial recognition use....

Allan has anyone ever been stopped going to the football for a totally unrelated offense?? No.

Allan has anyone been picked up by facial recognition cameras abd stopped from entering the football for an unrelated offense?? No.

Stop saying "its the reality" when it's never happened so cant be.

it hasn't happened..?
we have had fans banned for 10 years after committing no criminal offence mate.[/quote]

Give me 2 examples. People banned for 10years for committing no crime.

Blue dodo!
Are you roathie in disguise wanting proof of everything? I put up incident with met police read it all and you see what as happened with facial recognition....as for being banned with no crime that's been discussed when it happened! and again incident where reading fans were banned from city centre after an away game no aggro at game just fans returning to city! All discussed in here at time ... if you dont believe what is put on here that is hard luck.. this is a discussion forum not true or false show......

BLUEDODO.

im not going to name people on here but am sure if you PM Annis , Corky or Vince Alm they will confirm..

Just posted on Facebook

CEE5F3C5-DF95-4932-9DD1-48E9F29D1B06.png

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I'd never believe a word that comes from the filth

Just posted on Facebook

CEE5F3C5-DF95-4932-9DD1-48E9F29D1B06.png

my experience is { I have friends who have been on banning orders } the SWP hoolie squad know them all by name.. and in this game both sets of fans are followed around the country by the same group of police..
and is anyone on a current banning order seriously going to be turning up ?

I'm not sure the comparison is fair and is fear mongering not based on fact. A bit like the OP saying the system will be used for littering offences etc. I agree it should be monitored but the whole thing is a small price to pay for the extra security we need. Bearing in mind there has been strong links to terrorism in this City.

its not fear mongering at all.. CCTV is used more and more by environment officers to get numbers and fines up for fly tipping. what constitutes fly tipping these days though is more often than not leaving rubbish in the wrong place in recycling areas.. not unlike speed cameras that are placed where a road opens up a little .put a camera in an equation and the end result isn't about improvement of behaviour it becomes abouts numbers and pound signs.

Come to.pembs you'll see that majority of time PC plod and his friends plonk cameras where people usually speed up to pass slower vehicles on two lane rds, also to catch unexpected tourists coming off ferry on a Sunday morning!! Never see them at accident spot ... could go on

Spot on. Cash cow generating speed cams about all we get.

Spot on. Cash cow generating speed cams about all we get.

Surprised no one asks to prove it?

I did they sent a nice photo showing me at wheel and number plate.

I did they sent a nice photo showing me at wheel and number plate.

didnt mean the plod meant on here....

D'oh.

D'oh.

Obviously havent see posts I'm referring to? Never mind... silly question why did they send a photo did you querry the charge?

Yep

Yep

Always worth a punt although cameras more high definition now so wont escape its glare...

Gone Of The Days Of The Great Derbies Against The Jacks, With Abuse Shouting And Shouting On The Streets Heading Into The Stadium. The Police Has Spoilt The Fun Derby Days Im Afraid.

Yep

Always worth a punt although cameras more high definition now so wont escape its glare...

Yet the ‘have you seen this individual’ photos are the worst you’ll ever see

Just posted on Facebook

CEE5F3C5-DF95-4932-9DD1-48E9F29D1B06.png

my experience is { I have friends who have been on banning orders } the SWP hoolie squad know them all by name.. and in this game both sets of fans are followed around the country by the same group of police..
and is anyone on a current banning order seriously going to be turning up ?

Apparently it's being used to stop people with banning orders attending game? What happened to good old attend cop shop on match day that used to happen? No need for snooping on ordinary people going about their every day life, even police commissioners cant agree on its use.

Just posted on Facebook

CEE5F3C5-DF95-4932-9DD1-48E9F29D1B06.png

my experience is { I have friends who have been on banning orders } the SWP hoolie squad know them all by name.. and in this game both sets of fans are followed around the country by the same group of police..
and is anyone on a current banning order seriously going to be turning up ?

Apparently it's being used to stop people with banning orders attending game? What happened to good old attend cop shop on match day that used to happen? No need for snooping on ordinary people going about their every day life, even police commissioners cant agree on its use.

its a fixture that there hasn't been any trouble of note at for years mate.. and its a flat out lie { by the SWP } to say otherwise.
the fact they can not say the truth speaks volumes.

Just posted on Facebook

CEE5F3C5-DF95-4932-9DD1-48E9F29D1B06.png

my experience is { I have friends who have been on banning orders } the SWP hoolie squad know them all by name.. and in this game both sets of fans are followed around the country by the same group of police..
and is anyone on a current banning order seriously going to be turning up ?

Apparently it's being used to stop people with banning orders attending game? What happened to good old attend cop shop on match day that used to happen? No need for snooping on ordinary people going about their every day life, even police commissioners cant agree on its use.

its a fixture that there hasn't been any trouble of note at for years mate.. and its a flat out lie { by the SWP } to say otherwise.
the fact they can not say the truth speaks volumes.

Yes I know and alun Michael police commissioner said they destroy images in seconds? But it's well known and on record that images are kept for a time before supposingly being destroyed but obviously they keep some of interest to them but joe public does not know if they are on data base! So he lied on tv and that tells you police cannot be trusted with this technology...