Brit cops can keep millions of mugshots of innocent folks on file After unlawfully hoarding millions of mugshots of one-time suspects, police chiefs in England and Wales were this week told to delete the snaps – but only if people in the photos complain. And even then, requests can be easily waved away. This is all set out in the UK Home Office's "Review of the Use and Retention of Custody …
There are two offences. s.76 Terrorism Act makes it criminal to film Police *Constables* (but not staff), intelligence officers or military personnel. Note this is not the much abused s.44, which has been repealed.
And there's another one, more recent, that makes it criminal to intimidate a Constable by use of photography. Can't find that Act at the moment, it was probably tagged onto a Coroner's Act or somesuch.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/28/section/76
Perhaps the police and the 'authorities' would take the idea of deleting photos of innocent people more seriously, when we, the public, start keeping a database of photos of the police ?
AFAIK taking pictures in public is legal, so compling a database of photos of the police, taken in public places, would be a good first step. Once the police start to object just remind them that they and the Home Office have set the precedent.
After all, what have they got to hide !
"Once the police start to object just remind them that they and the Home Office have set the precedent."
IIRC there have been cases of UK police officers objecting to being photographed by members of the public. Probably classed as a "potential terrorist" intention.
Astonishingly, the Home Office stopped short of demanding the deletion of all images of innocent people no longer under investigation because, apparently, there are so many photos on file, it would be impractical to ask officers to go through all their databases and remove photographs of individuals who have never been convicted of an offence.
This almost makes it sound like the cops have no tracking of their photos and who they think are in them! I suspect almost everyone reading this could write some SQL to query a data base, then delete the file and update the DB (or use APIs).
You mugs built this shit, now you're worried that coppers might use trained AI to do their jobs. Deleting photos is the least of our problems. We have millions of cameras, your phone's GPS and all your tagged social media pictures already hooked up to deep learning machines built by software engineers that thought it would be used for what? Shopping or some shit. Really. The robots are coming.
Taking picture of a newly fused light in (shopping_superstore) by (drone). I mean I ask you, the explanation given by me about research on retro-PK for a scientific paper went down like ninety-nine lead balloons!
But yes, shops don't like you using cameras at all, even to the extent of politely asking you to delete said photos. Fortunately this time upon checking the picture wasn't there (wonder why?!) so even if they had queried it there would have been no evidence.
Also got snapped by some nice folks, then the picture used without my consent in the local rag, 4 times (!) out of context on issues I had not even considered. Go free press! :-P Funny as heck.
the Home Office stopped short of demanding the deletion of all images of innocent people no longer under investigation because, apparently, there are so many photos on file, it would be impractical to ask officers to go through all their databases and remove photographs of individuals who have never been convicted of an offence.
Select * from "suspects" where conviction = 0
Delete
Simples
On remand awaiting trial etc., innocent until proven guilty and convictions = 0. It just maybe harder than it looks because of how the data are structured, how disjoint and 'mandrolic' so much of the process still is, and the massive lack of IT skills in a body of people who signed up to catch wrong-doers and wear a natty black costume (call them 'costumes', because it so annoys people who wear uniforms, kit, livery, vestments etc.)
Of course we could demand that the system is improved so that the innocent do not get collectively lumped with the guilty, but that would cost money. Just wait for the 'Daily Fail' headlines about how money is being diverted from frontline policing to appease the demands of civil rights activists and anarchists.
Meanwhile, money is magically available for the latest 'Wunderkind' Home Office project to use AI to identify the farts of potential offernders or some such. If you don't like the status quo then write to your MP, local police and crime commisioner (*giggles*), BBC Watchdog or El Reg comments pages. Remember, for the moment at least (until your conviction for conspiracy to tell the truth), that you have a vote - FFS exercise it with some consideration; checking your prospective MP has at least half a brain and some semblance of moral compass might be a start.
"[...] that you have a vote - FFS exercise it with some consideration; [...]"
Unless you are in a marginal constituency - then with First Past The Post your vote has no chance of affecting the local result. Even in a marginal constituency in England you usually end up with either Labour or Tory - the candidates often being parachuted in from Central Office.
So you either register: a principled minority vote; a spoiled vote; no vote; grit your teeth to pick the least nasty of the big two. The latter is becoming difficult to choose on matters of privacy these days. Even David Davis seems to have lost his principles on being given a ministerial post.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
