Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Facial Recognition Technology at the Valley?

13567

Comments

  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,625
    edited July 1
    redman said:
    Personally I strongly object this. In fact I object to most survelliance. A gross invasion of personal liberty and freedom. But that seems an idea that is not considered worthy anymore. 
    As far as surveillance is concerned, if you’re talking about cctv that is, I am perfectly happy to sacrifice the possible invasion of my privacy for the security, crime prevention and crime solving benefits the cameras have. 
  • SporadicAddick
    SporadicAddick Posts: 6,864
    edited July 1
    .
  • SporadicAddick
    SporadicAddick Posts: 6,864
    edited July 1
    shirty5 said:
    Chizz said:
    Stig said:
    Well, it certainly seems that it's something that people have opinions about, so we'll done Cast for starting a discussion. Whether or not the club chooses to engage, at least they've prompted some thought amongst supporters. Better for them to have a good idea what people think before it becomes a reality than to be caught on the hop should the club announce plans at some point down the line.

    My personal perspective seems to be similar to others on here. If it's used to actively prevent undesirables from attending that would be good. Using it to restrict ticket transferability or to pinpoint people people to marketing partners that would be a negative.
    Is it ok for the club to deny entry to a person using someone else's session ticket?
    4. Season tickets are NON-transferrable. Should a season-ticket holder not be available to attend a match and wish a colleague/friend to attend, the season-ticket holder is to contact the Ticket Office, who will arrange for a paper ticket to be collected or send via email. This arrangement cannot be processed on a matchday. The season-ticket holder shall be deemed responsible for the behaviour of the third party using the paper ticket.

    Firstly the contradiction. Season tickets are "NON-transferable", but you can transfer them by contacting the club, who will print a ticket for collection or send an email. So a "NON-transferable" ticket is wholly transferable...

    Secondly - the rationale. If you accept that someone can transfer a ticket to a "friend or colleague" (this wording suggests I can pass my ticket to my boss, but not my daughter), then why create administration and cost - what does that prevent?

    In a capacity constrained market, this clause might prevent a "black market" in season tickets - but we are not capacity constrained.
  • PopIcon
    PopIcon Posts: 5,970
    edited July 1
    Fecal recognition would be more useful given the recent glut of shit talking on Charlton Life.
  • Dippenhall
    Dippenhall Posts: 3,919
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    redman said:
    Personally I strongly object this. In fact I object to most survelliance. A gross invasion of personal liberty and freedom. But that seems an idea that is not considered worthy anymore. 
    As far as surveillance is concerned, if you’re talking about cctv that is, I am perfectly happy to sacrifice the possible invasion of my privacy for the security, crime prevention and crime solving benefits the cameras have. 
    I agree, and bear in mind that a random CCTV camera is not linked to a database held by the camera owner that holds your personal details. 
  • guinnessaddick
    guinnessaddick Posts: 28,648
    Just walk in backwards, problem solved.
  • jose
    jose Posts: 624
    Be nice if it was combined with improving facial plastic surgery because I am as ugly as sin.
  • ThreadKiller
    ThreadKiller Posts: 8,622
    edited July 1
    AFKABartram said:
    JohnnyH2 said:
    As @killerandflash says if it is to stop banned people getting in I have no problem with that, perhaps CAST feel differently 
    Or people on government watch lists / terrorism concerns 
    It may also look for registered sex offenders, people who have types of orders not to be in areas where kids will be present
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,851
    ThreadKiller said:
    AFKABartram said:
    JohnnyH2 said:
    As @killerandflash says if it is to stop banned people getting in I have no problem with that, perhaps CAST feel differently 
    Or people on government watch lists / terrorism concerns 
    It may also look for registered sex offenders, who probably have orders not to be in areas where kids will be present

    That is potentially everywhere and anywhere.

    All the FSA, repeated by CAST, are saying is that there needs to be meaningful consultation to discuss the elements I listed earlier BEFORE facial recognition is installed at football grounds, rather than individual clubs just installing it with no consultation whatsoever.
  • fenlandaddick
    fenlandaddick Posts: 1,770
    As long as it welcomes me with ' Oh no not you again' each time I scan in , then it's a yes from me.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,851
    edited July 1
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?

    The counter argument is "I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be monitored".

    But that's not the point - for the third time it is about consultation, or rather a lack of.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,235
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,891
    sammy391 said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Funnily CAST wouldn’t engage with the club over their statement on possible plans to close the JS stand because there was no formal proposal to comment on. 

    But what seems to be a non Charlton issue is worthy of action. 
    Firstly, it was not about ‘closing’ the JS Stand- it was preempting relocating small away crowds to West Upper in order to provide better quality & more home seats in return. Warning fans who would purchase a seat in that area that there is a discussion about that happening, when STs went on sale.
    Something that is unlikely to happen now we are in the Championship.

    secondly, facial recognition is a topic that will be happening across all clubs - and with the recent FSA AGM motion pass, CAST have raised it reasonably quickly - especially when Shef’ Wed have announced bringing it in without any consultation and ironically without telling any fans first (fans found out because the council themselves had to tell fans posthaste) 


    It was about closing it on occasion. 

    The point however was that CAST said not appropriate to engage because there wasn’t a firm proposal - I draw a similarity to this topic. 

    Further I can’t envisage any circumstance when CAST should want to support the JS stand being closed. It seems to me it was a no brainer to quickly jump on that suggestion and express reservation. 
  • Greenhithe
    Greenhithe Posts: 781
    I am NOT trying to go down that road too far (honestly) but what about Muslim women in Hijabs? Are they expected to comply? If not we'll all turn muslim for the day.

      
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,891
    shirty5 said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
    But we don’t boycot or write to shops or train stations etc. as a rule.  

    I just see no meaningful downside. 
  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 11,167
    valleynick66 said:
    shirty5 said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
    But we don’t boycot or write to shops or train stations etc. as a rule.  

    I just see no meaningful downside. 
    But those places won't have facial recognition cameras, they'll have CCTV which is very different
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    edited July 1
    bobmunro said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?

    The counter argument is "I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be monitored".

    But that's not the point - for the third time it is about consultation, or rather a lack of.
    But I'm not bothered about being consulted either.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,851
    Chunes said:
    bobmunro said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?

    The counter argument is "I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be monitored".

    But that's not the point - for the third time it is about consultation, or rather a lack of.
    But I'm not bothered about being consulted either.

    That's your prerogative.
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,891
    fenaddick said:
    valleynick66 said:
    shirty5 said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
    But we don’t boycot or write to shops or train stations etc. as a rule.  

    I just see no meaningful downside. 
    But those places won't have facial recognition cameras, they'll have CCTV which is very different
    You are sure they don’t ? Pretty sure some do. 

    But regardless I can’t think of a real downside not already associated with you holding a ticket. 
  • Sponsored links:



  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 11,167
    valleynick66 said:
    fenaddick said:
    valleynick66 said:
    shirty5 said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
    But we don’t boycot or write to shops or train stations etc. as a rule.  

    I just see no meaningful downside. 
    But those places won't have facial recognition cameras, they'll have CCTV which is very different
    You are sure they don’t ? Pretty sure some do. 

    But regardless I can’t think of a real downside not already associated with you holding a ticket. 
    I think if they do then they need to have signage up to tell you
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,891
    fenaddick said:
    valleynick66 said:
    fenaddick said:
    valleynick66 said:
    shirty5 said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
    But we don’t boycot or write to shops or train stations etc. as a rule.  

    I just see no meaningful downside. 
    But those places won't have facial recognition cameras, they'll have CCTV which is very different
    You are sure they don’t ? Pretty sure some do. 

    But regardless I can’t think of a real downside not already associated with you holding a ticket. 
    I think if they do then they need to have signage up to tell you
    Possibly true. But regardless I see no problem personally. 
  • Stu_of_Kunming
    Stu_of_Kunming Posts: 17,118
    I hope none of you that object to being monitored have smartphones, insta, facebook etc, otherwise you’re in for a real shock. 
  • DaveMehmet
    DaveMehmet Posts: 21,601
    A big no from me. Fucked if I can be arsed having to prove to security staff I'm not Brad Pitt whenever I attend a game.
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    edited July 1
    .
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,625
    shirty5 said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
    Playing devils advocate here but where would you draw the line ? What about random stops in the street asking to see your papers ? I’m not saying cctv or even face recognition is the thing end of a wedge but it could be if these things are not widely discussed and consulted on. 
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,625
    fenaddick said:
    valleynick66 said:
    shirty5 said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
    But we don’t boycot or write to shops or train stations etc. as a rule.  

    I just see no meaningful downside. 
    But those places won't have facial recognition cameras, they'll have CCTV which is very different
    I’m pretty certain that main stations in London, Manchester and Birmingham have had face recognition for quite some time.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,235
    ShootersHillGuru said:
    shirty5 said:
    Chunes said:
    This kind of thing just doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a criminal and don't have a banning order so why should I be against it?
    Makes zero difference to me as well. Not going to stop me going about my business. 
    Playing devils advocate here but where would you draw the line ? What about random stops in the street asking to see your papers ? I’m not saying cctv or even face recognition is the thing end of a wedge but it could be if these things are not widely discussed and consulted on. 
    If i was stopped i would have no problem with that
  • Addickhead86
    Addickhead86 Posts: 1,151
    Facial recognition cameras could be a great way of identifying and banning those pesky rabble-rousers who take part in disruptive protests against noble football club owners. 

  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,341
    shirty5 said:
    Chizz said:
    Stig said:
    Well, it certainly seems that it's something that people have opinions about, so we'll done Cast for starting a discussion. Whether or not the club chooses to engage, at least they've prompted some thought amongst supporters. Better for them to have a good idea what people think before it becomes a reality than to be caught on the hop should the club announce plans at some point down the line.

    My personal perspective seems to be similar to others on here. If it's used to actively prevent undesirables from attending that would be good. Using it to restrict ticket transferability or to pinpoint people people to marketing partners that would be a negative.
    Is it ok for the club to deny entry to a person using someone else's session ticket?
    4. Season tickets are NON-transferrable. Should a season-ticket holder not be available to attend a match and wish a colleague/friend to attend, the season-ticket holder is to contact the Ticket Office, who will arrange for a paper ticket to be collected or send via email. This arrangement cannot be processed on a matchday. The season-ticket holder shall be deemed responsible for the behaviour of the third party using the paper ticket.

    Thank you @shirty5

    If the restriction is in place that only the original purchaser of the season ticket can use it, then there can be no complaints if someone is "caught" using it "outside the rules". And that goes whether the person is "caught" by a person looking at his or her face, or if it's a camera doing so. 

    If you try to break the rule, it shouldn't matter if you're caught by a human or a camera. 

    I think, if there's a genuine objection to facial recognition cameras being used to prevent this "fraud", then the real target of the complaints should be the rule (number 4), not the means by which it's enforced. 

Categories

“Marketplace”