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.
Is it really so? Why would then police ask for an ID if anyone can refuse and get away with it?
Hmm, how do you generally prove identity in the UK?
 Actually this is something I could easily look up on the Internet, sorry. I don't mean to waste your time.
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.
To prove who we are we can use a driving license or passport, if we have one. But there are many people with neither. In that case it's quite complex and usually requires a trustworthy person (doctor, lawyer, chartered engineer) who knows you well to confirm your identity.
The UK wants a National Insurance number to register to vote. https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
UK residents are sent a National Insurance number automatically just before their 16th birthday. https://www.gov.uk/apply-national-insurance-number
Pulling up an arbitrary UK bank, https://www.tsb.co.uk/current-accounts/faqs/identity/ shows many options to establish identity, including ones that don't require an identification card. Those under 18, for example, can use a National Insurance card or letter.
I don't know what domestic flights are like in the UK. From what I can tell, it's left to the airlines. Most (? all?) require some sort of id, and different airlines accept different forms. For example, FlyBe allows "Council issued bus pass" and "NUS card (National Union of Students)" and "Company ID card of nationally recognised company" - https://www.flybe.com/check-in/id-requirements .
In some countries (I'm thinking Australia, based on a podcast I listened to from a couple of years ago), domestic check-in is all automated and does not always require an id check. https://www.jetstar.com/au/en/help/articles/travel-identific... says "If you’re travelling with checked baggage on a domestic flight in New Zealand, you must provide ID." "Accepted ID types" include "Original or certified copy of a birth certificate", so "ID" is pretty broad.
Something like 17 states in the US don't require any form of id to vote - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St... - so this isn't unique to the UK.
To point out, voter impersonation - the sort of fraud which ID cards might solve - are very rare. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_St... . The vote is private, so if there was an organized system it's difficult to verify that the vote actually went the correct way. It requires a lot of people in order to sway an election, and that sort of organization has a higher chance of being detected. The list of people who voted is public, so it's also possible to track down if they actually exist, and there's the risk that a impersonator will try to impersonate someone who actually voted.
If it's important to know who someone is, then it can sometimes be solve by using a chain of trust. For example, the bank might require that a current account holder in good standing be willing to vouch for me, even if I have no id. Or, I might deposit a lot of money but have limited abilities until the bank trust me more.
Regarding the UK, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_on_the_British_n... .
If you get stopped in a vehicle, police may ask for your driving licence. If you don't have it you're issued a "producer" which requires you to produce your licence at a police station within 7 days. This only applies to traffic stops.
If you're the driver of a car and police stop you ans ask for ID you commit an offence if you refuse to identify yourself.
In traffic stops or getting booked for speeding I've just taken driving licence and insurance to a station on a producer.
There's other powers that PCSOs have for people who've been engaged in anti-social behviour, and those powers are probably misused.
But otherwise there's no legal requirement to identify yourself to police. If they have enough to detain you then they can detain you to find out who you are. But that's not the same as just demanding ID from everyone.
Do you usually get frustrated at people who are trying to obtain information, or learn? If you are not write-only, you should have noticed that it has been already answered. Seems like to me that the only reason for your comment is to let out your frustration at someone who is trying to learn. Thank you.
Punished for speech?
But as a matter of policy, who is really the one being threatening here? The man bristling at the government collecting personal data or the police officer with backup and (presumably) violent means of arresting the man?
I'd advocate showing nothing but contempt to a police officer who refuses to let me go about my business when I have committed no crimes.
(I'm not saying that I agree with this, but it is the argument being used).
Officer, arrest them! They are intimidating me by their refusal to respect my human rights!
It's kind of a slippery slope once you start trying to carve the troublemakers out from the public. That action can even be said to be incitory by it's nature.
Perhaps the police should arrest themselves for being a walking intimidation tool for the majority?
Dirty business that. If you're not interfering in a clearly criminal act, you are just acting as an intimidation force. Unjustified weaponization of suspicion can be just as harmful to a Law Enforcement Organiztion's legitimacy as unjustified use of lethal force.
The criminals you avoid creating through mounting I'll will and despair from the inevitable taint of interacting with the legal system will be a net gain for society.
I'm not saying without Leo's there would be no criminals; rather that continual nuisance and intrusion of the Systems in law abiding citizen's lives only serves to push more of the population toward unrest.
Well I'm sure the UK has professionals who can help you with these feelings of anxiety and dread
But sure, intonation is a thing. "I beg your pardon" can be said in a threatening way.
Is being told to "piss off" intimidating or threatening?
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.
How do we, as a society, reward just uses of this technology and penalize, or make impossible, unjust uses of it?
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.
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?
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.
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 ...
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. ;)
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?
Yes, organizing a union while avoiding the police helping to blacklist you for your efforts: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728
Thanks for sharing; do you disagree with my analysis?
This is a pretty standard “nothing to hide” argument.
Whilst the rest of us may have lots to hide, our physical appearance isn't one of those things because we don't expect to be subjects of active investigations.
Maybe that'll change?
No need for gov to do any of this to blackmail you, plant a record with an ISP arrest you for indecency; much easier?
I don't want my face to end up in any kind of database where the cops could always look up where I've been the past week and track my every movement. Neither do i want tons of recordings from different angles of my face in someone elses hands, due to how easy it is nowadays to plaster my face onto someone else.
Because... slippery slope? Or do you have something else?
It's not just that it's a slippery slope or right or wrong. It comes down to efficacy, false positives, false negatives, chilling effects and abuse risks. There's also the risk of incompetence in implementation and maintenance of these systems, not to mention data leak risks. These things should all play into our conversation about how we debate whether this approach is a net positive or net negative on society. Anything less is intellectually lazy.
In the same way there are risks of incompetence, and data leaks.
False positives and negatives, it strikes me that the risks there are mitigated in the same way as any other single evidentiary point is now, we don't convict people just because they match a description (whether matched by a person or computer in the first instance): that is just an early step in an evidence gathering procedure.
What seems like knee-jerk anti-authoritarian Ludditism in this thread - "they" will use it to lock us all up, we must cripple them technologically - doesn't seem to forward the conversation either, so thanks for responding.
And I believe it to be manufactured.
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  meant to confuse these systems.
Didn’t realize this was enforced.
He spent the night in the cells.
Judges waver a bit on this. Here's a blog post talking about the offence, and about a 2011 case: https://www.6kbw.com/publications/articles/section-5-of-the-...
I think, but I'm not sure, that the offence isn't in the word that is used, but in how the word is used. I think if he'd said "I'm not fucking doing that" he'd have been ok, but if he says "fuck off, I'm not doing that" he isn't ok. But I'm not sure about this.
It is a bit worrying that police so frequently use public order offences and I wish they'd reduce the use of them.
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.
In other words you can swear at the police but only once!
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.
We have to decide whether expressing a (legal but unfriendly) sentiment is illegal, or only some wordings of a (legal but unfriendly) sentiment are illegal.
Actually we don't have to decide, and the police will be quite happy, its a catch-all law; they get to arrest anyone they don't like and the public get to live in a legal grey area where they are only safe if they grovel and plead, its a minefield, tell me again why can't we have freedom of speech?
>A section 5 offence comprises two elements:
> A person must (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and
> The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
This is all intepreted by the courts and they do push back against police misuse of the act.
why can't we have freedom of speech? Cause we are a society distressingly terrified of being insulted.
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.
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.
Then why was a man fined for telling an officer to piss off for invading his privacy?
Personally I think this provision in law an overreach, but the general point stands. Say anything you like unless it's been specifically prohibited.
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.
I see no conflict whatsoever.
How is telling someone "leave me alone", but not respectfully enough, in any way comparable to causing a panic that leads to a crush?
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.
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.
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.
(edit: forgot some exceptions)
Putting the police back on the leash seems unlikely, to say the least.
They seem mostly very obviously designed as masks.
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.
if it were expanded to everywhere in London I believe we will catch criminals quicker.
That’s a good lad, they have trained you well.
Surely omnipresent and forced surveillance could never be used against YOU... you’re a good boy.
To have so little vision of the past, present, and future. Must be blissful!