
Police stop people for covering their faces from facial recognition camera - walterbell
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recognition-cameras-technology-london-trial-met-police-face-cover-man-fined-a8756936.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true
======
NeedMoreTea
> The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned
> will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”

Though you'll be stopped, asked for ID (not compulsory in the UK), and fined
if you decline. That sounds like being viewed as suspicious to me. It's a
shame it sounds like he didn't decline the fixed penalty to get a court case.
We're overdue for some civil disobedience.

~~~
robjan
You don't get fined for failing to produce ID but you can be fined for
swearing at the police, which is what happened in this case. If he politely
refused to show ID, there is nothing the police can do unless they have
reasonable suspicion that the guy was committing a crime

~~~
johnisgood
Are you sure you can't get fined or detained or whatever for not showing ID?
Cops would find that really really suspicious. I thought you were legally
obliged to show ID when asked anyway, at least in the UK. Is it not the case?
I would say that the act of not showing ID would be "reasonable suspicion" by
itself. Maybe not, but curious how it plays out in practice, and what the law
has to say about it.

~~~
robjan
There is no national ID card in the UK so it would be impossible to enforce.
There is no law saying you have to produce ID on request and "reasonable
suspicion" only applies to a specific crime. The police can't just say that
they have "reasonable suspicion" that you are committing an unspecified crime.

~~~
johnisgood
Does "reasonable suspicion" imply an unspecified crime? Does it have to be the
case? Suspicion doesn't necessarily mean that it is the case, so as long as
they can come up with reasons, it's fine, and they don't need to be correct,
or at least they won't get "punished" for being incorrect. Is it wrong? I am
just trying to gather more information. :D

Hmm, how do you generally prove identity in the UK?[1]

[1] Actually this is something I could easily look up on the Internet, sorry.
I don't mean to waste your time.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Reasonable suspicion that you are breaking the law, or are about to break the
law. They may be required to justify their grounds, i.e. what they suspect you
of and why. They have been known to simply ignore those requests for why.

e.g. I suspect you of going equipped to commit burglary due to your stripey
jumper, crowbar and bag with "swag" printed on it.

Proving ID is usually done via passport or driving licence. If you don't have
those producing a couple from bank statement, utility bill or council tax bill
is usually enough. I'm old enough to have got bank account without any
requirement for ID at all. Yes, that means it can be a chain of circumstantial
evidence rather than proof.

------
jdietrich
Police in England and Wales do have the powers to compel someone to remove a
disguise, but only under specific circumstances under Section 60AA of the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It is not clear that in these
circumstances they had the power to do so, although there is nothing stopping
them from simply _asking_ someone to remove a mask. This man was fined for a
separate offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, due to his
decision to swear at a police officer.

[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/60AA](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/60AA)

[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5)

It is worth noting that this trial is being conducted in the vicinity of the
Westfield centre in Stratford, which has seen a number of serious violent
incidents in recent years. It lies in something of a no-mans-land between the
territories of various local gangs, creating a natural point of friction.
There have been at least two incidents where a gang fight caused mass panic,
one of which involved an acid attack. I am opposed to facial recognition
technology on principle, but this seems like the most justifiable use-case;
unless something is done, there's a very real risk of a mass casualty incident
in the near future.

~~~
nerdponx
The problem is that it is a slippery slope.

How do we, as a society, reward just uses of this technology and penalize, or
make impossible, unjust uses of it?

------
0db532a0
“anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as
suspicious”

So the police demanded to see his identification while having no grounds for
suspecting that the guy had committed, or was about to commit a crime.

There are two actual situations which come to mind where the man could have
been legally compelled to provide ID: a designated area under the Terrorism
Act, and a traffic stop. Neither of those situations apply here.

If were in the same situation as this man, I might not be able to hold myself
from telling them to piss off too.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
You see someone, they notice a sign "police: cameras being used for facial
recognition", one person turns away and immediately seeks to conceal their
identity ... I'm sure people will come up with lots of creative reasons why
the person covered up but the most likely is because they knew themselves to
be a criminal the police would care about.

As you consider you would get in the same situation I'm curious why you would
cover up?

Aside from that, I thought police were using facial recognition in public cctv
already.

So, I suspect the sign works rather like the "pickpockets in this area" signs
that /pickpockets/ put up; they encourage people to reveal themselves.

tl;dr is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality?

~~~
justinclift
> is there a reason to cover up except hiding criminality?

There are _lots_ of reasons people might want to do this.

Including such minor ;) things like "told the wife I was going home, but I'm
going out with the boys to the pub".

With your face recognised and in a database, it _could_ then come to light at
a future point. With your face _not_ in said database, it can't. Pretty simple
really.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>things like "told the wife I was going home, but I'm going out with the boys
to the pub" //

Do people do that for real, beyond jokes?

So the reason is "to enable dishonesty"?

I mean everyone with a password or driving license has their face in a
database.

Meanwhile, the shops you were in know that you were there, Google probably
know too ...

~~~
justinclift
You're really reaching.

The first question was pretty much "what reason could there possibly be, other
than being a criminal?".

I just pointed out there are _many_ "non criminal" reasons people don't want
their every move tracked/stored/potentially-disclosed. That was obviously just
a simple example.

Bearing in mind that what's "not criminal" in your country today may change
too. You're not safely excluded. ;)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Strikes me you'd want to stop private companies tracking you first, before
attempting to cripple police operations.

Yes, fascists have taken power. Similarly fascists use guns, so "police
shouldn't have guns because with changes in the State this guns can be used
against us"? All databases make fascist authoritarianism easier, so no
databases? Computers, cars, ...

If you think that's all too much, let's step in the mid-ground -- ANPR, a good
economical, efficient tool v for law enforcement or a potential fascist
instrument that must be outlawed?

------
webmobdev
Incidents like these just confirm my suspicion that the real reason UK exited
EU was to complete their political experiments on spying on their citizens
(both offline and online) - EU privacy laws might have proven a hurdle here.

------
jradd
When are we going to find a clever trick like the "License plate SQL
injection" command [1] to drop database upon scanning the malicious text
superimposed on a license plate.

Obviously sql injection wont work, but perhaps some sort of sunglasses,
makeup, lipstick, jewelry, or hat could severely confuse the neural net's
recognition algorithm, similarly to the way certain colors of faces would
confuse emotion detection in camera's a while back.

edit: Don't know if this is authentic or not, but apparently there is a
clothing line in Berlin that features patterns [2] meant to confuse these
systems.

[1]:[https://hackaday.com/2014/04/04/sql-injection-fools-speed-
tr...](https://hackaday.com/2014/04/04/sql-injection-fools-speed-traps-and-
clears-your-record/)

[2]: [https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-
public/thumbnails/imag...](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-
public/thumbnails/image/2017/01/05/16/hyperface.jpg)

~~~
acct1771
[https://cvdazzle.com/](https://cvdazzle.com/)

------
pcurve
guy told them to p __* off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine
for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.”

Didn’t realize this was enforced.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/854625...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/8546253/80-fine-for-swearing-in-public.html)

~~~
smaili
Is there a formal definition of what words are considered “swearing” or is it
at the discretion of the officer?

~~~
jdietrich
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to use "threatening
or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour" in a public place.
Interpretation of the precise meaning of those words is a matter for the
courts; this has historically been interpreted quite liberally, but _Harvey v
DPP_ established the clear distinction between words that are _potentially_
abusive and words that actually caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Broadly speaking, you're OK to swear _in front of_ a police officer, but
you'll get nicked if you swear _at_ a police officer, which strikes me as a
reasonable compromise between liberty and civility.

[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5)

[http://www.mondaq.com/uk/x/175956/Public+Order/Section+5+Of+...](http://www.mondaq.com/uk/x/175956/Public+Order/Section+5+Of+The+Public+Order+Act+1986+The+Impact+Of+Harvey+v+DPP)

~~~
balfirevic
What about swearing at another person who is not a police officer? The law
sounds like it prohibits that too.

~~~
jdietrich
_It is a defence for the accused to prove—

that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or
sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or [...] that
his conduct was reasonable._

The police aren't going to get involved if you use robust language at 10pm in
a pub. They may well get involved if you start screaming obscenities in the
supermarket.

------
clubm8
>“The guy told them to p* off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine
for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.”

The fine was not for covering his face. It was for swearing.

People often forget that the UK is a monarchy and does not have rights like
free speech.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Actually we do. Under both common law, and statute via the Human Rights Act.
What does being a monarchy have to do with it?

Say anything you damn well like unless it has been proscribed by Statute.
Examples include inciting racial hatred or as here the provisions of this
public order law.

~~~
clubm8
>Actually we do. Under both common law, and statute via the Human Rights Act.

Then why was a man fined for telling an officer to piss off for invading his
privacy?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It's one of the situations that have been proscribed. In this case by the
Public Order Act 1986.

Personally I think this provision in law an overreach, but the general point
stands. Say anything you like unless it's been specifically prohibited.

~~~
clubm8
> It's one of the situations that have been proscribed. In this case by the
> Public Order Act 1986.

You just claimed you have free speech. Now you're citing a specific law making
it illegal to not be deferential enough to police. These two points conflict.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I am aware of NO nation on earth that has unconstrained free speech, including
the USA. I believe the famous canonical example in a US context is shouting
fire in a crowded theatre, and therefore speech opposing the draft.

I see no conflict whatsoever.

~~~
clubm8
>I am aware of NO nation on earth that has unconstrained free speech,
including the USA. I believe the famous canonical example in a US context is
shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and therefore speech opposing the draft.

How is telling someone "leave me alone", but not respectfully enough, in any
way comparable to causing a panic that leads to a crush?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
UK law chose to add a restriction for abusive or threatening language. The
edge is in a different place, that's all. I don't think the UK has ever
restricted speaking out against conscription, the US used to. Different
countries, different restrictions.

It is still free speech within the legislated exclusions set by the two
countries. No one gets fined or imprisoned for standing outside parliament
complaining about the government all day etc.

In accepting the penalty without disputing it in court, we'll never know if a
court would have upheld this case as a reasonable fine or interpretation of
the law.

------
Tharkun
In Belgium, covering your face in public has been illegal for at least as long
as I've been alive. It's not usually strictly enforced (e.g. scarves in winter
are fine), but it's nevertheless the law.

When I was maybe 6 years old, I was dressed up as a Ninja Turtle, and got
reprimanded by the police because the outfit included a mask.

~~~
weavie
Surely that reprimand was the officer just cracking a (perhaps poory thought
out) joke?

~~~
tinus_hn
No. It’s a big thing because of the Muslim veils.

------
m3nu
In Austria it's also illegal to cover your face in public.

The only exceptions are cold weather, job, traditional costumes. Here is a
great infographic about it. As can be seen, the law was originally against
muslim women. But if it works equally well to support facial recognition –
awesome.

[https://media.diepresse.com/images/uploads_1152/6/3/6/528952...](https://media.diepresse.com/images/uploads_1152/6/3/6/5289526/22-s10-Vermummungsverbot-
PW_1506004077588230.jpg)

(edit: forgot some exceptions)

~~~
a3_nm
Same thing in France:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering)

------
ndnxhs
I feel like there may be a need in the future to come up with trendy facial
coverings. Might be useful to combine them with practical features like
partical filters. Its also insane how you can be fined for swearing. Sounds
like the police where harrasing some random guy and they expressed frustration
in a non violent and ordinary way.

~~~
clouddrover
I think the simpler approach is to put the police back on the leash. There are
no real technical solutions to problems with the law. The law needs to be
changed to stop police acting this way.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
UK govt have been slowly chipping away at freedoms we took for granted for
decades. The Daily Mail is constantly campaigning to "do something" over some
trivial thing or another.

Putting the police back on the leash seems unlikely, to say the least.

------
jaclaz
In Italy there is a Law that prevents from having face/head covered in public
that dates back to the terrorism years (1970's).

[http://www.edizionieuropee.it/LAW/HTML/46/zn81_03_001.html#_...](http://www.edizionieuropee.it/LAW/HTML/46/zn81_03_001.html#_ART0005)

It is rarely (or never) actually enforced, as it prohibits specifically to
wear "in public places or in places open to the public" (unless there are
specific reasons) helmets (including motorcycle ones) and "any other means
that may make difficult recognising the person", which would include scarfs.
hoods and similar.

------
eveningcoffee
I do not believe that there is a technical solution for this political
problem.

------
rahuldottech
Argh c'mon. This is just getting increasingly dystopian and Orwellian. I don't
like this.

------
deogeo
We can't stop omnipresent surveillance, because if someone chooses to put
cameras on their store-front that's their business, but apparently we _can_
stop people trying to avoid this surveillance.

------
sys_64738
There's a reason Airstrip One was the UK.

------
mhb
It would be great to tell the anti-vaxxers that facial recognition cameras
cause autism. Two problems solved!

------
known
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa) is
a religious tradition

~~~
yowlingcat
Well that's one kind of a...sardonic response. I'm imagining a dystopia where
people wear Burqas in order to evade facial recognition. The more I think
about it, the more I wonder if facial recognition is sine qua non conceptually
haram. Will there be some such standoff one day between Wahhabists and proto-
centrist, pro-surveillance warhawks? What an odd world we live in.

------
PunchTornado
although there are some legitimate concerns about privacy, the tradeoff here
seems worth it.

if it were expanded to everywhere in London I believe we will catch criminals
quicker.

~~~
nichos
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin

~~~
evgen
If you are going to throw out the quote, please learn the actual correct
quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." If fact, it would
probably serve you well to learn that actual context of the quote as well
(hint: it is not about the conflict between government power and individual
liberty...)

~~~
quaice
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -nichos

Better?

