back to article MPs 'alarmed' by millions of mugshots on Brit cops' databases

A panel of MPs has attacked the Tory-led coalition government for failing to clamp down on the collection of millions of Brits' mugshots, which have been stored on a police database without robust legal oversight. Parliament's Science and Technology Committee, chaired by Labour MP Andrew Miller, branded the "continuing lack of …

  1. lightman
    WTF?

    Indiscriminate police surveillance

    Didn't we just have the Supreme Court sanction this ?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/08/uk_supreme_court_waves_through_indiscriminate_police_surveillance/

    1. Warm Braw

      Re: Indiscriminate police surveillance

      Well, the high court actually prohibited it in 2012, but the police simply ignored them.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Indiscriminate police surveillance

        TOTALLY NOT IN A POLICE STATE!

        1. KR Caddis

          Re: Indiscriminate police surveillance

          Are "they" implying that there are millions of criminals running around loose in GB that reALLY warrant using facial recognition software to monitor, possibly continuously? Or maybe "they" are going to type people by appearance as to criminal potential and monitor the shifty looking? Orwellian surely!

          If it can be done,it will be; damn the torpedos (laws?) Too many CCTVs in UK; where does it end? And if it happens in such a civilized country, what will happen in totalitarian states when their technologies catch up? We have the NSA, equally bad. 'We have your face and we have your thoughts; CONFORM or else...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Future, what future

    It is become increasingly difficult to see a light at the end of the tunnel, Capitalism being replaced by totalitarianism, governments holding more thieves and profiters than politicians.

    Where the fuck are we supposed to see something positive amongst all this crap... By reading about the sexual exploits of pathetic starlet X or failed footballer Y.

    If life has meaning, I am damned sure that it shouldn't be this. Something will have to change either through choice or through force. If it is going to be force then I am convinced that it will be very ugly.

    1. omnicent
      Happy

      Re: Future, what future

      Cheer up!

      1. Anonymous Custard
        Big Brother

        Re: Future, what future

        You do also wonder how much is a vested interest of theirs, given how many of their former (and quite possibly current or future) colleagues are actually featured in said database...

    2. Sebastian A

      Re: Future, what future

      They'll keep pushing the boundaries of what people will tolerate until one day they take one step too far and someone, somewhere will snap, and there will be an avalanche of dissent turning into riots and full-on revolution.

      And there will still be politicians sitting there saying "What are you DOING, we're just trying to keep you SAFE!", not realising that they're the problem, not the solution.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Future, what future

        "They'll keep pushing the boundaries of what people will tolerate until one day they take one step too far and someone, somewhere will snap"

        Interesting, I thought that time might have been the expenses scandal. There they all were, stealing hand over fist, while banging on about benefit fraud etc. A general uprising would have been in order, have the whole lot of them out, start again with a proper 21st century system of government.

        Ultimately, I think people cant be arsed. As long as there is food and beer in the shops, and telly at home, the majority are happy. If 2 million of the residents of London missed 4 meals in a row, we'd be underway, flaming torches and all.

        1. Kane
          Black Helicopters

          Re: Future, what future@Hadvar

          "Ultimately, I think people cant be arsed. As long as there is food and beer in the shops, and telly at home, the majority are happy."

          "..there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon..."

        2. KR Caddis

          Re: Future, what future

          People DO snap and they are punished accordingly. There has to be a better way. In the US we have too few, only two choices really; there are no meaningful alternatives. One side is pitted against the other.

          Whatever hopes we had for positive change with the Obama election were pretty much obstructed in retaliation for THAT win. There wouldn't be a second or third chance for meaningful changes after the election. He carried a nearly impossible burden upon entering office, two wars and a gutted economy, and it's taken 6+ years to turn anything around and it will need at least two terms to get back to a budget surplus, and maybe never out of the Middle East again. If the GOP should win in '16, whatever the progress, it will be quickly undone. What then? And UK and Western Allies all get dragged along as well. And almost half the voters feel the opposite, so where can we go?

      2. Joey M0usepad Silver badge

        Re: Future, what future - They *are* just trying to keep us safe

        I'm going to make another one of my regular appeals for some to tell me what the fucking problem is and express it in a way other than screaming "civil liberties"

        Tell me how the cons will out way the pros.

        If everyone had fingerprints , DNA and regular mugshots taken surely crime would be cut in half?

        If some asshole thug in a pub decides to stick a glass in my face and then waltz out the door into anonymity and have a good laff about it. what a buzzin night. quality . kicked some fkers 'ead in too.

        I'd like to think that if I was lucky enough to get some CCTV , or some DNA that that would be game over for the offender. As it is currently unless the investigating copper recognises perp thats it game over for the victim.

        Maybe if really really serius it'll go on crime watch and the police will say "anybody recognise this guy?" which is akin to "If we'd have took prints dna & mugshots we'd know already - please help us we're pissing in the wind here"

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          Re: tell me what the fucking problem is

          The fucking problem is not that state surveillance could keep criminals in check. London is the most watched city in the world and I don't recall reading that crime has vanished.

          The problem is that, in a surveillance society, it is the watchers who decide what is a crime. It is their interpretation of events that counts. The problem is that what you think is legal, honest citizen behavior today could well be criminalized tomorrow and you'll only learn about it when the police lorry stops next to you and you're whisked off, never to reappear.

          The right to privacy is what is keeping our society from becoming a civilization of oppressed individuals. It is your conviction that the police have to prove your wrongdoing before convicting you that gives you your peace of mind and ability to function as a valuable part of society.

          With state surveillance, everyone becomes closed in, anyone who is taken is by default judged guilty, and people who think otherwise shut up for fear of being taken themselves.

          Is that really the society you are defending ? If so, why are you not working for the NSA ? Maybe you are.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Future, what future - They *are* just trying to keep us safe

          Joey M0usepad

          Just in case you were unaware, all the Jails are empty because the fear of gettign caught and the subseqent punishment is so terrible that nobody dare commit a crime.

          IF < it's a big if, what you say happened and there was no major crime due to surveillence, DNA & whatever else your mind can come up with, the need for control by Govt would lead to evermore statutes defining more everyday activities being criminal offences, eg kinky sex between consenting adults in their own homes, the boundaries of which would progess until stupid postings in Internet forums was on the list.

          I accuse you, now, of commiting a heinous crime, proesent yourself to the closest police station for processing.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Future, what future - They *are* just trying to keep us safe

          It revolves around a cultural issue (assumption that if you're on the database you've done something wrong [leading to impaired/lacklustre investigations to double-check the result is correct], and that false positives/mistakes don't happen), and the possibility of false positives.

          Alec Jeffreys ("inventor" of DNA fingerprinting) puts it quite well (basically, he argues for everyone or only the guilty): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/04/dna_pioneer_lambasts_database/

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Future, what future - They *are* just trying to keep us safe

          'If everyone had fingerprints , DNA and regular mugshots taken surely crime would be cut in half?'

          Dunno. Lots of other things I also dunno. Like what people could do with my dna, prints and mugshots at some point in the future. In short, I dont trust them, particularly with my dna. Though I hate to venture into Godwin's territory here, in the 30's in parts of Europe plenty of information was gathered, that looked innocent at the time, but was later used for unpleasant purposes. It's way too easy to dismiss the events of the 30's and 40's and ancient history. Bollocks, it was just yesterday, and could happen again tomorrow. I'd prefer to have control of my own info, if at all possible thanks. Finally, by keeping everyone's DNA for crime prevention, you are uncomforably close to assuming everyone is guilty, or will be guilty of something in the future. I prefer it the other way.

        5. localzuk Silver badge

          Re: Future, what future - They *are* just trying to keep us safe

          @Joey M0usepad

          Quite simply put - corruption. Sure, those technologies aren't an issue on their own, but when they're used in a blanket way, it doesn't take much effort to screw someone over with them. I've been on the receiving end of police lying about me, and of a concerted political campaign to clamp down on a peaceful protest. It resulted in my having to drop out of university, and my life taking a massively different direction - and that was relatively minor stuff they lied about.

          On top of that, our movement saw the government make laws specifically to make what we were doing illegal. That being protesting. Injunctions were issued, new laws brought in. Its now illegal to contact 2 people in a business to complain about their business practices if the first one tells you not to call again - ie. you are harassing a business.

          1. Joey M0usepad Silver badge

            Re: They *are* just trying to keep us safe

            Hey thanks for the replies Pascal, AC, Hadvar & Localzuk

            so we have :

            "Theyll start inventing new laws" - cant they do that with and without the DNA etc?

            "innocent until proven guilty will be reversed" - will it? + cant they do that with and without the DNA etc?

            "kinky sex will become illegal" - cant they do that with and without the DNA etc?

            "assumption that if you're on the database you've done something wrong" - well no, see dvla etc

            "new laws invented re protesting and crowds etc" - cant they do that with and without the DNA etc?

            Sorry but none of those reasons , to me , are more useful than the chance of getting my toaster back when some waste of oxygen smackhead breaks into my kitchen.

            Obviously I can see that a regime like that would be paradise for a malicious dictator / totalitarian regime - but safeguards could be put in place.

            1. localzuk Silver badge

              Re: They *are* just trying to keep us safe

              @Joey M0usepad

              You seem to think its about specific laws. It isn't, its about legislative creep. This stuff is in addition to all the other attacks on civil liberties. It all piles up, and suddenly you realise you're living in a police state. Just look through all the laws of the last 10 years and you'll find an alarming number which take away tiny bits of freedom here and there, but overall it adds up to a much larger issue.

              Safeguards *could* be put in place, but they very rarely are, and when they are they are so weak or are ignored so as to make them pointless. Just look at the spying stuff. We had a court rule what GCHQ had been doing was illegal, but since people now knew about it, it no longer was. We have laws all over the place with "safeguards" but the safeguards are never as strong as the laws they are there to control. It barely takes any effort to change them.

            2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

              Re: safeguards could be put in place

              Safeguards are in place, but total surveillance just runs roughshod over them.

              But hey, as long as you can get your toaster back, everything's all right, right ?

              Wrong.

              What you don't understand is that dictatorships always thrive on surveillance. Fidel Castro held Cuba in his hands because every other citizen was an informer. Imagine what a newly-minted dictator would get with a country under 24/7 observation.

              Creating the means to detect any dissent is logically followed by the desire to quell that dissent. And you know what they say about absolute power . . .

              But it looks like you're going to just have to find out the hard way.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: safeguards could be put in place

                @Joey

                You do understand what totalitarianism means ?

                Alhough I can understand why you would wish for an altruistic state of affairs unfortunately the greedy bastards that are commonly known as politicians often have a very perverted idea of "altruistism*.

                The Nanny state loves people like you because you bend to their very desires.... Keep voting Cameron, and most of his friends opponents and you will more than likely get shafted what you want.

                When push come to shove, kindly stand to the side whilst those with some bollocks actually get things done.... Rob Roy would have laughed at you for being a twunt.

            3. KR Caddis

              Re: They *are* just trying to keep us safe

              "Obviously I can see that a regime like that would be paradise for a malicious dictator / totalitarian regime - but safeguards could be put in place."

              Like what? Maybe another Hitler can't be elected? It doesn't have to be in UK or US to get all of us dragged into the fray. Imagine IS with more knowledge of peoples' personal beliefs, preferences, associations, or refusals to go along with the "plan"? We, as the 'free world', which I take to mean 'of free choice', can't muster enough consensus to even address it, much less act after the twin debacles from Bush II, Chaney, Rove, et al. And, it can get a lot worse. After all, "this is the best of all possible worlds."

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Future, what future

        Sebastian A "there will be an avalanche of dissent turning into riots and full-on revolution"

        No there won't.

        Even big public demo's don't take place anymore, police tatics to cause "public order" issues so they can beat and intimidate, sometime kill, ordindary legal protesters, together with all the filiming and photographing so they can add you to their 14 million snaps, ensure the appitite for big demonstrations does not exist.

        Add to that appathy and the (non rebellious) youth's general stance of looking down into their shiney devices while missing what is happening around them.

        How quicky people forget events like the poll tax being dropped by the effective actions of demonstrators, I miss the old days, when people stood together.

        1. Bunbury

          Re: Future, what future

          "How quicky people forget events like the poll tax being dropped by the effective actions of demonstrators, I miss the old days, when people stood together"

          Yes indeed. All those police horses in Trafalgar Square but we stood up to the hated poll tax and cast it down. In other news, I see my Council Tax is due.

      4. TheProf

        Re: Future, what future

        I hate it when that happens!

      5. Steven Roper

        @Sebastian A Re: pushing boundaries.

        It will have to get a LOT worse than this before people rebel. North Korea stands as a stark example of the extent of oppressive conditions people are willing to tolerate without rebellion or revolution.

        Remember the boiling frog analogy. I'm absolutely certain that if half the laws and legal practices we tolerate today, had been suddenly imposed all at once back in the 1970s, people would have stormed Parliament House the same way they did the Bastille in 1789. But because these laws have crept in one by one over many years, using safety/fear as justification, they've been able to impose conditions that would have been considered absolutely intolerable 40 years ago.

        So I doubt very much there will ever be a revolution now, because the powers that be have the boiling frog technique worked out pat. What the future holds in my mind doesn't bear thinking about. I just live one day at a time hoping it doesn't get too bad before I shuffle off this mortal coil. At least with no children I don't have to be concerned about where civilisation goes after I'm gone.

    3. RobHib

      @A.C. -- Re: Future, what future

      "Something will have to change either through choice or through force"

      How!

      The bureaucratic establishment has become far too powerful to change, in that there's now a plethora of laws, which when examined holistically, are more about the The State's self-protection than they are about protecting the citizenry. Unfortunately, the citizenry is, more and more, perceived as the enemy.

      As you say, to change it by force would mean an ugly, bloody, French-revolution-style coup d'état, and few civilized people have the stomach for that anymore (fortunately).

      Tragically, we're stuck with it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we citizens took our eyes off the the ball once too often.

    4. Vanir

      Re: Future, what future

      Do you have a vote? Do you use it?

      In live in Britain and I always vote. This is the means by which we the people can change our government with out reverting to violence.

      Well, that's the theory. However, the principle is sound. If only once does violence change government then it will always be so.

      I'm pissed off with our political leaders, namely Labour, Lib Dems and the Conservatives, since the expenses scandal. I will never vote for these parties, but I will vote, for some other candidate not belonging to them. If everyone did the same these parties would take notice; and who will the rich and powerful 'support' then?

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Future, what future

        "I'm pissed off with our political leaders, namely Labour, Lib Dems and the Conservatives, since the expenses scandal. I will never vote for these parties, but I will vote, for some other candidate not belonging to them. If everyone did the same these parties would take notice; and who will the rich and powerful 'support' then?"

        Dunno, your standards also mean no UKIP - they are led by a money-man and funded by money-men.

      2. DwarfPants

        Re: Future, what future

        I always vote as it give me the moral right to moan and whine about whoever wins. Does not seem to achieve much more than this.

    5. Bunbury

      Re: Future, what future

      You forgot to add:

      Turning and turning in the widening gyre

      The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

      Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

      Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

      The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

      The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

      The best lack all conviction, while the worst

      Are full of passionate intensity

      Not entirely sure why this means the sky is falling. The government have had my photo since 1980 when I got my first passport, and lots of people willingly put loads of snaps of themselves online. Surely the headline should be "group of MPs add one more PR snippet to the pre-election mud slinging".

      Awaiting the inevitable torrent of downvotes from the tinfoil brigade.

  3. Winkypop Silver badge
    Coat

    They take us all for mugs

    This will reflect negatively on those calling the shots.

    Such abuse will not go away in a flash.

  4. RobHib
    Unhappy

    Just forget it.

    Forget it, it's far too late for a few wayward pollies with twinges of conscience to fix.

    Tragically, it's all over Red Rover, the cat's out of the bag. As with all other types of surveillance, we're far too far down the road of a police state to now do anything to stop it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just forget it.

      So many downvotes for daring to seek to shatter illusions. Alright. It isn't too late. Choose a suitable country and emigrate. En masse. That might change things. If it does; if those who care in positions of power themselves stand up and be counted, come back.

      I suppose it's a bit like believing in God, my thinking the Royal Family might stand up. Wishful thinking for sure.

      Voting sure as hell ain't gonna do it. Voting is now fiddling while Rome burns.

      1. RobHib

        @ Pheasant Plucker - Re: Just forget it.

        So many downvotes for daring to seek to shatter illusions.

        Shooting the messenger's been a time-honoured pastime for those who don't want to hear. Seems it's human nature, it's also part of the problem.

        1. RobHib
          FAIL

          @Down-voters -- Re: @ Pheasant Plucker - Just forget it.

          Down-voters: may I humbly remind you that in an argument, refuting a proposition is normal and proper procedure. Down-voting without attempting to refute my proposition automatically means you lose the argument by default.

          Of course, if you are part of the of The State's apparatus—that to which I was originally referring—and are merely upset or offended, then down-vote this.

          Gotcha, either refute the argument or shut-up!

  5. David Pollard
    Megaphone

    Policing by consent?

    Plod took a photo of me when I was stopped for a defective tail lamp on my van.

    The creation of databases by collecting pics at every opportunity makes 'armchair policing' easier while doing little to reduce crime. It erodes the main resource in tackling crime: public co-operation. To treat everyone who isn't a club member as a criminal does not improve things.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Policing by consent?

      "To treat everyone who isn't a club member as a criminal does not improve things."

      The point of many recent laws is to make definition of crimes so vague, that everyone is guilty of something; that gives our lords and masters control.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Policing by consent?

      Isn't it about time, there was a central police / civil service / government photo database.

      Not one they want, but one of all those listed above in the public domain for all to see.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: Policing by consent? The best defense is a good offense!

        Maybe you're right Lost all faith!

        Start a national photo database of police, civil service, government employees and see how THEY like it.

        Tell them that the citizenry just want to be assured that they are dealing with a bonifide government employee.

        If they won't let their picture be taken or complain, then of course you say "What are you trying to hide".

        Then make sure they and the press grasp the concept of what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Policing by consent?

      I think the tipping point has been reached.

      When nice white middle class well paid people like el'reg readers have the same opinion of police as a black teenager - they have lost.

      Quick office survey of "would you help an injured police officer lying by the side of the road" resulted in bad news for any cops in accident. Motorbike cops in an accident would still be helped by the bikers - apparently biker first cop 2nd applies - but the rest could expect to bleed to death.

    4. Mister_C

      Re: Policing by consent?

      "stopped for a defective tail lamp"

      Is that still illegal? About time the police round here were told. Ditto headlamps.

      1. phil dude
        WTF?

        Re: Policing by consent?

        AC above was right (it can happen!). They just need an excuse to stop you.

        Remember kids, so long as you can be distracted you cannot challenge those in authority. Think of all the ways in which your time gets leached, and you might come the realisation, that saturation has been reached.

        This is why the rich get richer. They can pay for other people to clear their way by sweeping the "street of life" clear before they walk.

        If you are on a minimum wage in an uninspiring occupation and spending 40 hours a week doing it, there is little chance you will be able to challenge the status quo. Without wanting to sound conspiratorial, at Oxford the undergrads are not *allowed* to work. This is obviously good for education. But when you think about it, means someone else is doing the "clearing"...

        Here in the US just about every student I talk to is working at least one job. I might suggest this keeps political dissent to a minimum. It is no wonder the UK govt has so enthusiastically embraced fees and entrenched student debt. I'll bet it keeps the vocal student marches down.

        Well that, and banning the ability to march.....

        P.

  6. Graham Marsden
    Big Brother

    "some of the people had not even been charged"

    Ah, but they're probably guilty of *something", they just haven't been caught for it yet!

  7. Alistair
    Windows

    "some of the people had not even been charged"

    @ Graham Marsden

    No, they are guilty of something, the law to convict them has not yet been written.

    I *KNOW* what the lifecycle of data is. **it** **does** **not** die. Some jackass has a copy of it somewhere.

    Eventually grumpy cat will be pronogryfia. And you will all be guilty. Before being charged.

    Voting is all well and fine. Sadly - on my side of the pond, any majority government has been bought and paid for before it was elected. The damn conservatives have been carpet bombing the populace with advertising for the last year and a half, and twatface hasn't even hinted at calling the election yet. Trudeau will have to have the ghost of his father, Jean Chretien, and several other *dead* politicians standing over his shoulder before he will manage to pull a government together, and the NDP don't have any politicians. They have .... children running amok as far as I can tell. And I'm not inclined to toss a cookie at anyone that wants to dismantle my country. Hell at this rate I might just have to run as an independent and scream at rest of the house when they get stupid. Not that it will do me any good.

    Thanks for getting me off to a grumpy start today.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "some of the people had not even been charged"

      Is Harper bothering to hold an election ?

      I assumed he would just declare himself dictator for life, in an enabling act after proroguing parliament

  8. Elmer Phud

    I wonder . . .

    . . . . how far back the photos go.

    Anyone going to Notting Hill Carnival years ago will remember the line of cops on the flyover filming and snapping at anything that moved.

    I'd love to see how young I looked then.

    1. phil dude
      IT Angle

      Re: I wonder . . .

      for your amusement I once asked the US border guard if the photos they take of us at the border can be requisitioned as they could be a good source of medical data by correlating how hungover you look after an 8 hour flight....I got a quizzical look, a pause, and a chuckle...

      So perhaps write them a letter and report back?

      P.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Do they do prints?

    I'd like some 4 x6s, in colour, please.

    It's for me Mum.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As long as they've got my good side i'm not bothered...

    ...who's vain?....me!!!

  11. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    So what are you going to do?

    Absolutely nothing like millions of others.

    Not that there is a lot which anyone can do. At best one can vote in a party which will itself do what it wants. Half the people don't even see there is a problem because they have swallowed the kool-aid and see anyone protesting as the problem.

    The best way to keep people oppressed is to have them oppress themselves and we've done a mighty fine job of complying so far. Anyone who doesn't is seen as some sort of dangerous radical which ensures it continues and keeps those who would be rightly radicalised quiet.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Morons

    What did they think was going to happen when they kept approving budgets with that crap in them?

    About the only satisfaction anyone will get out of this is watching these idiots hoisted by their own diminutive petards when the hammer falls on them. We're talking about people who'd eat their own young (metaphorically speaking) for political and financial advantage. It's only a (short) matter of time before they turn the flamethrowers on each other.

  13. batfastad
    Meh

    alarmed

    Here's my alarmed face... http://goo.gl/5Exw0G

    "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    one quick point

    There are plenty of innocent people out there who, without realising it, have their details on police systems...

    Why?

    Because other people use their details when they get caught / have dealings with the police.

    I have -NO- way to verify the identity of a no trace short of visiting their house and asking for full documents to confirm which isnt always possible. Card ID that I would normally rely on is easy enough to forge.

    Personally, I think an image kept on record would solve hundreds of hours of wasted police time AND false detail provision which happens a shitton.

  15. D Moss Esq

    The appropriate response? Mockery

    No-one who gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's enquiry into biometrics said that mass consumer biometrics work. No statistics were put forward to measure how reliable this technology is.

    Many witnesses went out of their way to say how unreliable mass consumer biometrics are. Not least the police themselves – "the technology is not yet at the maturity where it could be deployed", says Chief Constable Chris Sims at para.95 speaking for the Association of Chief Police Officers about face recognition.

    There's no need to be alarmed by the deployment of a technology that doesn't work. It is more appropriate, surely, to mock the deployers, in this case the police, for wasting their time deploying it. You could also be angry that they are wasting their time. And our money. But not alarmed.

    Chief Constable Sims is also quoted as saying that he is "not aware of forces using facial image software at the moment". Are we to believe that the police have gone to all the trouble of uploading 12 million+ faces onto their national database but they aren't using them? If so – and that's what the Chief Constable says – then cue more mockery.

    Mockery or fury at the waste of time and money and the absence of logic. But not alarm. Alarm suggests that you think the technology works. Even the police don't say that. They say the opposite. It doesn't work. All you do by expressing alarm is to help the salesmen to sell this flaky technology. "Why would all these cowardly children with something to hide be alarmed", the salesmen may ask a prospective credulous customer, "if the technology doesn't work?".

    There is plenty of room to be angry at the police for ignoring the High Court for 2 1/2 years. No room for alarm. And otherwise just wall-to-wall mockery at the twits for buying this rubbish and pretending that they are thereby doing something in the interests of crime prevention/detection.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like