
Face recognition in European police forces - n_kb
https://algorithmwatch.org/en/story/face-recognition-police-europe/
======
rsto
Austria is one of the countries listed in the article, and it refers to an
Austrian newspaper which reports that police _plans_ to use facial recognition
starting late December 2019 ([https://futurezone.at/netzpolitik/das-kann-die-
gesichtserken...](https://futurezone.at/netzpolitik/das-kann-die-
gesichtserkennungssoftware-der-polizei/400534747)).

On a tangent, the Austrian constitutional court of justice just today ruled
that security forces are not allowed to use traffic camera data beyond using
it to enforce traffic laws. They also forbid police to install hidden malware
on people's phones ("Bundestrojaner"): [https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Kfz-
Kennzeichenerfassung_und__...](https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Kfz-
Kennzeichenerfassung_und__Bundestrojaner__verfass.de.php)

While the use of facial recognition might not be a good thing in any case, it
looks to me as if currently police is limited only to use it to
retrospectively investigate serious crimes ("schwere Straftat").

~~~
koheripbal
"using" facial recognition is some form or another is so vague, that it's
effectively a useless classification.

------
rahuldottech
Relevant:

What facial recognition steals from us:
[https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/10/21003466/facial-
recogn...](https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/10/21003466/facial-recognition-
anonymity-explained-video)

How to avoid a dystopian future of facial recognition in law enforcement:
[https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/10/20996085/ai-facial-
rec...](https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/10/20996085/ai-facial-recognition-
police-law-enforcement-regulation)

~~~
bsenftner
Relevant for an exaggerated,fear based perspective. Both is these articles
condition the reader to believing in inevitable failure. These are completely
black and white views and as we know, everything is grey.

------
onreact
Of course they do. Western technology corporations provide the tools, the
Chinese regime proves it works and then everybody else wants it as well. This
is the process. It is not democracy though. The police should not dictate the
policy.

~~~
onreact
I referred to the headline "At least 10 police forces use face recognition in
the EU, AlgorithmWatch reveals". Now it has been changed on HN.

------
winrid
Was in Korla, Xinjiang. So many cameras. You get a picture of your face taken
and then a gate lifts when going into a lot of public areas or communities.

~~~
TurkishPoptart
Damn, did you take any pictures? That's a place many of us in the West just
hear about, but not really see. I'd say blog post about it, if you can.

~~~
winrid
I have a lot of pictures. I'll blog about it. If anything, you feel really
safe once you get past the dystopian aspect.

We always left our bags in the car since a lot of parking areas had an officer
walking around. Beat that San Francisco. :)

------
superqwert
When the author writes:

"Even if face recognition can match a face with 99% accuracy, the sheer amount
of faces available in police databases makes false positives inevitable. (The
1% error rate means that, if 10,000 people who are not wanted by the police
undergo face recognition, 100 will be flagged as wanted)."

The author is not being fair.

Usually with technologies like these, developers will not aim for an accuracy
of 99%, but a precision of 99% (that is what we do with Congestion Charging in
London, where the ramifications of FPs are much lower [I work in Transport for
London]). That means that for 10,000,000 people undergoing facial recognition,
only 100 may be flagged as wanted, and only 1 will be a false positive. If we
were talking about 99% accuracy, that doesn't necessarily mean what the author
claims either. Accuracy is (TP + TN)/(P + N), meaning that the decrease in 1%
from 100% can be in any of:- a lowering of TP or TN; or an increase of FP or
FN. There is no reason to think that the 1% will all mean false positives.

------
imiric
This is expected, yet still scary.

What are some easy / cheap / unobtrusive ways of thwarting face recognition
software? I've read about masks, umbrellas and even makeup, but these are all
obvious and difficult to use. Is there an inconspicuous solution that would
only prevent face recognition without alerting human authorities? Would using
these methods even be legal?

~~~
ferbivore
The only way to thwart face recognition is the Hong Kong method: put a mask on
and tear the cameras down.

Any clever technical solution you can think of will be swiftly declared
illegal. Technology won't save you from government abuse.

~~~
computerfriend
Wearing a mask was also swiftly declared illegal in Hong Kong. (Currently off
the books pending appeal, but you get the idea.)

------
aurizon
I do not object to facial recognition as long as a rigorous screen on use is
in place. Known paroled felons who are going about their business legally in
conformance with their parole might allow us to parole far more people that an
excess of punitive zeal keeps locked up. Each one of these would require a
warrant and be limited to end of their parole. Once done, they are out of the
net. They need to improve the competence of these types of camera on various
racial subtypes to make sure the error rate is the same as the whiter groups
to avoid selective over reach on these groups. Like all things with sharp
edges, they can be used badly - as we see in China versus the Uighers as well
as Tibetans. Sadly, we lack the power to meddle except via trade restrictions
- which misses the crooked rulers and harms the Chinese people - for whom I
have great respect.

------
ThalesX
Whenever I hear about mass surveillance I think that the sci-fi movies with
weird haircuts and make-up are starting to look more and more like a
possibility.

CV Dazzle [0] (not affiliated) has an interesting set of examples.

[0] [https://cvdazzle.com](https://cvdazzle.com)

------
StavrosK
"Almost all", says the title.

"10", says the article, "the majority (that answered questions)".

The EU has 28 member states.

Yes, we should be wary of allowing the police to use face recognition, but
this sort of sensationalization helps no one.

Mirror, because the site is not responding well:
[https://ipfs.eternum.io/ipfs/QmSkQZKnY4mdNmVnya2MVM2ZgnAj5H7...](https://ipfs.eternum.io/ipfs/QmSkQZKnY4mdNmVnya2MVM2ZgnAj5H7DjWf5Yr6ahY5EHj/)

~~~
Peroni
In the case of Ireland where they categorise the country as "facial
recognition in use" it states:

 _It is unclear if the Gardaí use face recognition in real time, but face
recognition is widely use to spot welfare fraud._

There are no documented cases of the Gardaí using real time facial recognition
in Ireland. In the case of welfare fraud, a facial imaging system is used when
registering or renewing your welfare status to prevent people registering
under multiple or false identities.

~~~
donaltroddyn
It is also predicated on the Public Services Card, a de facto national ID card
by stealth (the electorate in Ireland has resisted any attempts to implement a
national ID card) which is "not compulsory but is mandatory for services"
(from [https://www.thejournal.ie/regina-doherty-public-services-
car...](https://www.thejournal.ie/regina-doherty-public-services-
card-3564489-Aug2017/) ) and of which the Data Protection Commission has ruled
"that the State’s retention of personal data on the 3.2m cards in existence is
unlawful" (from [https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/data-
comm...](https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/data-commissioner-
issues-enforcement-notice-in-respect-of-public-services-card-968977.html) ).

The government contest this result (and have been accused of using budgetary
measures to hamper the DPC's ability to investigate and enforce their
findings), but the use of facial recognition in Ireland is currently unlawful,
and, personally speaking, a disgrace.

In terms of the use of facial recognition by the Gardaí, the truth is that we
don't know whether it has been used - only that its fruits haven't been
included in any book of evidence.

------
raxxorrax
And we gained nothing from it...

This is mainly driven by people around the age of 60 with a profound fear of
death and almost no knowledge about implications of certain technologies.

It is not restricted to public safety, surveillance will also be employed
against normal employees and workers, your health providers and any form of
communication.

The police is trimmed to meet certain quotas and will try to get anything that
might give them an advantage.

I want to get off this continent. Not that there are many alternatives left.

I still have to plan to laser any public camera I see. Luckily my region is
still too boring to see mass deployment.

It is not important to not getting seen by cameras, it is important to spit on
them wherever they surface.

~~~
Ididntdothis
“This is mainly driven by people around the age of 60 with a profound fear of
death and almost no knowledge about implications of certain technologies.”

I thought most surveillance tech is developed by young bright people. You are
making a big mistake by making this an age issue. You are sort of implying
that once these old people are gone things will get better. They won’t.

~~~
raxxorrax
Developed perhaps, but then they sold it to old paranoid people. I understand
every interior minister that tries to try to amp up surveillance beyond any
reasonable level, but we have increase any form of security since a few
decades throughout the western world. And most of it because of irrational
fears, because life didn't get exactly more dangerous, just complete madness
instead.

> once these old people are gone things will get better. They won't.

No, we would have new old people.

