Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Facial Recognition Technology at the Valley?
Comments
-
The other night some friends and I were discussing music from our teens, a long conversation about System of a Down started, we had YouTube on in the background playing music based on my algorithm, I’ve never listened to SoaD in over a decade….. Boom, instantly in the playlist….. scary stuff.Raith_C_Chattonell said:I've used a kindle for years without a thought to its implications.
It was only when I added an Amazon Fire tablet to my techno junk that I realised my reading habits were being monitored. Not only can I pick up either device and carry on reading from where I left off, but there was a huge swathe of messages on the Fire informing me I'd read everyday for a week/fortnight/month. I was a gold reader, I was a bibliofile etc etc etc. As the vast majority of my reading is carried out in the 'reading room' It is apparent that not only do they know when I'm reading, but also when - and for how long - I'm taking a dump.
That is quite an uncomfortable thought for me ... and I'm guessing for you too
0 -
I was in Telecoms during my working life.
I can picture our full time union chairman now ... a very fiery Scotsman. He stood up and delivered a very impassioned speech about protecting jobs and not allowing the new technology in. In truth, the new technology arrived on a galloping horse and he was swept out of office. An old lesson really, nothing has changed since the industrial revolution. When it comes to people v technology, technology wins every time.
There will be dissenters of course, there'll be discussions and action groups ... and then there'll be division and then the new technology gets installed.
2 -
You are 100% correct in everything you say.Raith_C_Chattonell said:I was in Telecoms during my working life.
I can picture our full time union chairman now ... a very fiery Scotsman. He stood up and delivered a very impassioned speech about protecting jobs and not allowing the new technology in. In truth, the new technology arrived on a galloping horse and he was swept out of office. An old lesson really, nothing has changed since the industrial revolution. When it comes to people v technology, technology wins every time.
There will be dissenters of course, there'll be discussions and action groups ... and then there'll be division and then the new technology gets installed.
I still think it's sad though.0 -
Live facial recognition technology (LFR) is helping the Met stay ahead of criminals at a time "where money is tight," according to the force's director of intelligence.
Lindsey Chiswick, the lead for LFR at the Met and nationally, said more than 1,000 arrests had been made since January 2024 using the tool, including alleged paedophiles, rapists and violent robbers.
0 -
What without prior consultation and consideration of the privacy issues! 😉😆clive said:Live facial recognition technology (LFR) is helping the Met stay ahead of criminals at a time "where money is tight," according to the force's director of intelligence.
Lindsey Chiswick, the lead for LFR at the Met and nationally, said more than 1,000 arrests had been made since January 2024 using the tool, including alleged paedophiles, rapists and violent robbers.
Seriously though a good thing.1 -
Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?
7 -
The club already know everything about us, unless you're banned or using a child's ticket I don't see the problem.3
-
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?0 -
ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?I agree - there is something not quite right with me when the enforcement strategy is to monitor everyone.If somebody has broken the law to an extent that there whereabouts needs to be monitored and/or they are banned from being in certain places then I have no issue in tagging them - they have lost their right to privacy in those situations whereas law abiding citizens have not.1 -
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?
You already opt in or out with the club for your data being used for marketing etc.
Likewise as I understand it the law permits your picture to be taken in a public place.I’m really not sure your face being captured is a ‘problem’ that doesn’t already exist elsewhere there may be cameras.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Then it should be part of a wider discussion because it affects everyone and safeguards and rules need to be in place. This technology seems to be arriving through the back door and it’s definitely an infringement of civil liberties and needs to be debated. The pros might outweigh the cons but until we can establish that in wide discussion I think it needs to be checked.valleynick66 said:
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?
You already opt in or out with the club for your data being used for marketing etc.
Likewise as I understand it the law permits your picture to be taken in a public place.I’m really not sure your face being captured is a ‘problem’ that doesn’t already exist elsewhere there may be cameras.1 -
Which civil liberty is infringed if introduced at a private venue you choose to attend compared to being out in a public place where there are cameras?ShootersHillGuru said:
Then it should be part of a wider discussion because it affects everyone and safeguards and rules need to be in place. This technology seems to be arriving through the back door and it’s definitely an infringement of civil liberties and needs to be debated. The pros might outweigh the cons but until we can establish that in wide discussion I think it needs to be checked.valleynick66 said:
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?
You already opt in or out with the club for your data being used for marketing etc.
Likewise as I understand it the law permits your picture to be taken in a public place.I’m really not sure your face being captured is a ‘problem’ that doesn’t already exist elsewhere there may be cameras.0 -
What happens to the data collected ? Will there be a possibility that it could say whether or not you were present at a certain match ? Will the images be collected and be used by a third party ? Will the images be part of a national database ? When if ever will data be deleted ? Can you request to see any images collected ? Will the data be sold to eg shops and anyone else ? Are scanned faces actually recorded or just scanned and dismissed ? Do you know the answers to any these questions and probably more important issues that I’ve not thought of ? The point is none of us do? There needs to be very strict rules in place.valleynick66 said:
Which civil liberty is infringed if introduced at a private venue you choose to attend compared to being out in a public place where there are cameras?ShootersHillGuru said:
Then it should be part of a wider discussion because it affects everyone and safeguards and rules need to be in place. This technology seems to be arriving through the back door and it’s definitely an infringement of civil liberties and needs to be debated. The pros might outweigh the cons but until we can establish that in wide discussion I think it needs to be checked.valleynick66 said:
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?
You already opt in or out with the club for your data being used for marketing etc.
Likewise as I understand it the law permits your picture to be taken in a public place.I’m really not sure your face being captured is a ‘problem’ that doesn’t already exist elsewhere there may be cameras.0 -
But which civil liberty do you believe is denied if facial recognition is used at a football ground? I thought that was your point.ShootersHillGuru said:
What happens to the data collected ? Will there be a possibility that it could say whether or not you were present at a certain match ? Will the images be collected and be used by a third party ? Will the images be part of a national database ? When if ever will data be deleted ? Can you request to see any images collected ? Will the data be sold to eg shops and anyone else ? Are scanned faces actually recorded or just scanned and dismissed ? Do you know the answers to any these questions and probably more important issues that I’ve not thought of ? The point is none of us do? There needs to be very strict rules in place.valleynick66 said:
Which civil liberty is infringed if introduced at a private venue you choose to attend compared to being out in a public place where there are cameras?ShootersHillGuru said:
Then it should be part of a wider discussion because it affects everyone and safeguards and rules need to be in place. This technology seems to be arriving through the back door and it’s definitely an infringement of civil liberties and needs to be debated. The pros might outweigh the cons but until we can establish that in wide discussion I think it needs to be checked.valleynick66 said:
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?
You already opt in or out with the club for your data being used for marketing etc.
Likewise as I understand it the law permits your picture to be taken in a public place.I’m really not sure your face being captured is a ‘problem’ that doesn’t already exist elsewhere there may be cameras.Or are you more generally concerned that facial recognition is used anywhere in the UK without your personal consent? In which case it’s not a football issue.0 -
I’d say that any data concerning me that I havnt agreed to being collected is an infringement of my civil liberties. In some circumstances I accept it because I understand it’s for the greater good. At major transport hubs I’d have no problem or close to sensitive buildings and places. The security values outweigh my concerns. I also don’t object to ANPR cameras for exactly the same reasons. They help protect me. I don’t see a need for facial recognition outside of the above. At least I don’t think I do unless the debate is held and my opinion is changed. At present there is little national debate and I believe there needs to be.valleynick66 said:
But which civil liberty do you believe is denied if facial recognition is used at a football ground? I thought that was your point.ShootersHillGuru said:
What happens to the data collected ? Will there be a possibility that it could say whether or not you were present at a certain match ? Will the images be collected and be used by a third party ? Will the images be part of a national database ? When if ever will data be deleted ? Can you request to see any images collected ? Will the data be sold to eg shops and anyone else ? Are scanned faces actually recorded or just scanned and dismissed ? Do you know the answers to any these questions and probably more important issues that I’ve not thought of ? The point is none of us do? There needs to be very strict rules in place.valleynick66 said:
Which civil liberty is infringed if introduced at a private venue you choose to attend compared to being out in a public place where there are cameras?ShootersHillGuru said:
Then it should be part of a wider discussion because it affects everyone and safeguards and rules need to be in place. This technology seems to be arriving through the back door and it’s definitely an infringement of civil liberties and needs to be debated. The pros might outweigh the cons but until we can establish that in wide discussion I think it needs to be checked.valleynick66 said:
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?
You already opt in or out with the club for your data being used for marketing etc.
Likewise as I understand it the law permits your picture to be taken in a public place.I’m really not sure your face being captured is a ‘problem’ that doesn’t already exist elsewhere there may be cameras.Or are you more generally concerned that facial recognition is used anywhere in the UK without your personal consent? In which case it’s not a football issue.0 -
Well the example above was a banned person being identified. That is good I would think and is a safety thing.ShootersHillGuru said:
I’d say that any data concerning me that I havnt agreed to being collected is an infringement of my civil liberties. In some circumstances I accept it because I understand it’s for the greater good. At major transport hubs I’d have no problem or close to sensitive buildings and places. The security values outweigh my concerns. I also don’t object to ANPR cameras for exactly the same reasons. They help protect me. I don’t see a need for facial recognition outside of the above. At least I don’t think I do unless the debate is held and my opinion is changed. At present there is little national debate and I believe there needs to be.valleynick66 said:
But which civil liberty do you believe is denied if facial recognition is used at a football ground? I thought that was your point.ShootersHillGuru said:
What happens to the data collected ? Will there be a possibility that it could say whether or not you were present at a certain match ? Will the images be collected and be used by a third party ? Will the images be part of a national database ? When if ever will data be deleted ? Can you request to see any images collected ? Will the data be sold to eg shops and anyone else ? Are scanned faces actually recorded or just scanned and dismissed ? Do you know the answers to any these questions and probably more important issues that I’ve not thought of ? The point is none of us do? There needs to be very strict rules in place.valleynick66 said:
Which civil liberty is infringed if introduced at a private venue you choose to attend compared to being out in a public place where there are cameras?ShootersHillGuru said:
Then it should be part of a wider discussion because it affects everyone and safeguards and rules need to be in place. This technology seems to be arriving through the back door and it’s definitely an infringement of civil liberties and needs to be debated. The pros might outweigh the cons but until we can establish that in wide discussion I think it needs to be checked.valleynick66 said:
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?
You already opt in or out with the club for your data being used for marketing etc.
Likewise as I understand it the law permits your picture to be taken in a public place.I’m really not sure your face being captured is a ‘problem’ that doesn’t already exist elsewhere there may be cameras.Or are you more generally concerned that facial recognition is used anywhere in the UK without your personal consent? In which case it’s not a football issue.The Met Police example was also about identifying criminals. Again to our collective advantage.I’m just struggling to see why facial recognition at a football ground creates a disadvantage when you already give your details to them in. Using a ticket and your image is potentially captured by any number of photographers etc.
I’m not seeing the football specific concern in the same way I’m not worried about shopping in Morrisons.What’s the football unique element I’m missing?4 -
Live Facial Recognition Technology should not be confused with CCTV. Some interesting points here:Given this sustained pressure, it is striking that no dedicated legal framework has yet been introduced. In the absence of clear statutory safeguards, the expansion of LFR risks undermining public trust, eroding civil liberties, and enabling discriminatory surveillance practices. To navigate the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties, any deployment of such surveillance tools must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in law.There needs to be consultation (which is all the FSA is calling for), meaningful dialogue with law enforcement agencies and the ICO, and there needs to be legislation to regulate its use.
2 -
I’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.bobmunro said:Live Facial Recognition Technology should not be confused with CCTV. Some interesting points here:Given this sustained pressure, it is striking that no dedicated legal framework has yet been introduced. In the absence of clear statutory safeguards, the expansion of LFR risks undermining public trust, eroding civil liberties, and enabling discriminatory surveillance practices. To navigate the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties, any deployment of such surveillance tools must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in law.There needs to be consultation (which is all the FSA is calling for), meaningful dialogue with law enforcement agencies and the ICO, and there needs to be legislation to regulate its use.0 -
I mean, if they did put it in (which wouldn’t be cheap) they wouldn’t take any maintenance options so about 90% of it would have packed up within a year.Don’t worry yourselves about it (unless maybe you have agreed a big image rights package with a sponsor (maybe Nivea) for your noggin?)2
-
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?ShootersHillGuru said:
I’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.bobmunro said:Live Facial Recognition Technology should not be confused with CCTV. Some interesting points here:Given this sustained pressure, it is striking that no dedicated legal framework has yet been introduced. In the absence of clear statutory safeguards, the expansion of LFR risks undermining public trust, eroding civil liberties, and enabling discriminatory surveillance practices. To navigate the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties, any deployment of such surveillance tools must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in law.There needs to be consultation (which is all the FSA is calling for), meaningful dialogue with law enforcement agencies and the ICO, and there needs to be legislation to regulate its use.
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.0 - Sponsored links:
-
What’s the justification for using it is more important. I’ve outlined the reasons why I don’t think it’s yet safe to be used anywhere outside of the exceptions I mentioned. Those are the current disadvantages. You explain what the advantages are for its use at let’s say for arguments sake The Valley.valleynick66 said:
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?ShootersHillGuru said:
I’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.bobmunro said:Live Facial Recognition Technology should not be confused with CCTV. Some interesting points here:Given this sustained pressure, it is striking that no dedicated legal framework has yet been introduced. In the absence of clear statutory safeguards, the expansion of LFR risks undermining public trust, eroding civil liberties, and enabling discriminatory surveillance practices. To navigate the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties, any deployment of such surveillance tools must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in law.There needs to be consultation (which is all the FSA is calling for), meaningful dialogue with law enforcement agencies and the ICO, and there needs to be legislation to regulate its use.
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.0 -
To catch criminals. It’s that simple isn’t it if supporting the police. People may be banned but attempt to gain entry is another.ShootersHillGuru said:
What’s the justification for using it is more important. I’ve outlined the reasons why I don’t think it’s yet safe to be used anywhere outside of the exceptions I mentioned. Those are the current disadvantages. You explain what the advantages are for its use at let’s say for arguments sake The Valley.valleynick66 said:
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?ShootersHillGuru said:
I’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.bobmunro said:Live Facial Recognition Technology should not be confused with CCTV. Some interesting points here:Given this sustained pressure, it is striking that no dedicated legal framework has yet been introduced. In the absence of clear statutory safeguards, the expansion of LFR risks undermining public trust, eroding civil liberties, and enabling discriminatory surveillance practices. To navigate the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties, any deployment of such surveillance tools must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in law.There needs to be consultation (which is all the FSA is calling for), meaningful dialogue with law enforcement agencies and the ICO, and there needs to be legislation to regulate its use.
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
The point I’m trying to make but which you don’t seem to address is what’s unique about using it a football ground that is the worry?Why aren’t you concerned that Morrisons supermarket may use it by comparison ?
Or are you voicing concerns more generally only and in which case it’s not a football specific thing?
I’ve not seen a concern that is specific to football when we already share many details with them.3 -
How do you find the criminals without looking at everyone?bobmunro said:ShootersHillGuru said:
My jury is still out on its ubiquitous use and it would help in the scenario you cite but there are 37k other people in the stadium who have done nothing wrong yet they are all being monitored and have no idea how their personal data is being used and as yet have no say in the matter. I’m not sure this example fills me with happiness or confidence.SteveACS said:Take the Leeds United scrote who attacked Kirkland. He was banned (I can't remember how long for) but before his ban was up, he was filmed, in the stands, at a Leeds United game.
The ticket office of any club, has limited resources. Yes, it could be flagged up if he uses a credit/debit card, but what is he pays cash? Or gets a friend to buy him a ticket?
Facial recognition = wallop, you're knicked son. Surely if it keeps banned hooligans out of grounds, it's a good thing?I agree - there is something not quite right with me when the enforcement strategy is to monitor everyone.If somebody has broken the law to an extent that there whereabouts needs to be monitored and/or they are banned from being in certain places then I have no issue in tagging them - they have lost their right to privacy in those situations whereas law abiding citizens have not.0 -
I’m really not sure how much clearer I can make it. I think until there are laws in place that safeguard it use I don’t think it should be used at all. I can repeat that I’m already happy that it’s used in major transport hubs and in other sensitive locations because I realise it’s important for our security. Forget football stadia it’s no more or less important or unique than having it in IKEA or the Co-op Not necessary.valleynick66 said:
To catch criminals. It’s that simple isn’t it if supporting the police. People may be banned but attempt to gain entry is another.ShootersHillGuru said:
What’s the justification for using it is more important. I’ve outlined the reasons why I don’t think it’s yet safe to be used anywhere outside of the exceptions I mentioned. Those are the current disadvantages. You explain what the advantages are for its use at let’s say for arguments sake The Valley.valleynick66 said:
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?ShootersHillGuru said:
I’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.bobmunro said:Live Facial Recognition Technology should not be confused with CCTV. Some interesting points here:Given this sustained pressure, it is striking that no dedicated legal framework has yet been introduced. In the absence of clear statutory safeguards, the expansion of LFR risks undermining public trust, eroding civil liberties, and enabling discriminatory surveillance practices. To navigate the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties, any deployment of such surveillance tools must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in law.There needs to be consultation (which is all the FSA is calling for), meaningful dialogue with law enforcement agencies and the ICO, and there needs to be legislation to regulate its use.
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
The point I’m trying to make but which you don’t seem to address is what’s unique about using it a football ground that is the worry?Why aren’t you concerned that Morrisons supermarket may use it by comparison ?
Or are you voicing concerns more generally only and in which case it’s not a football specific thing?
I’ve not seen a concern that is specific to football when we already share many details with them.0 -
I asked AI to give arguments for and against.
Arguments For Widespread Use of Facial Recognition Technology
1.
Public Safety & Crime Prevention
- Helps law enforcement identify suspects, find missing persons, and prevent crimes.
- Can assist in counter-terrorism by identifying potential threats in public spaces.
2.
Enhanced Security
- Improves security in sensitive areas like airports, borders, and government buildings.
- Used in cybersecurity to strengthen authentication (e.g., unlocking phones, secure payments).
3.
Efficiency & Convenience
- Speeds up identification processes (e.g., automatic border control, event check-ins).
- Enables contactless verification, which became especially valuable during COVID-19.
4.
Business & Commercial Uses
- Streamlines customer experiences (e.g., personalized shopping, targeted advertising).
- Reduces fraud in sectors like banking and retail by verifying identities.
5.
Lost & Missing Persons
- Can help locate missing children, vulnerable adults, or human trafficking victims.
❌
Arguments Against Widespread Use of Facial Recognition Technology
1.
Privacy Violations
- Can enable mass surveillance, infringing on the right to privacy and anonymity in public spaces.
- Individuals may be tracked without consent or knowledge.
2.
Bias & Inaccuracy
- Studies show racial, gender, and age biases—higher error rates for people of color, women, and young/elderly individuals.
- Risk of false positives leading to wrongful accusations or detentions.
3.
Chilling Effects on Freedom
- People may avoid protests, gatherings, or public activities out of fear of being tracked.
- Potential tool for authoritarian control or suppression of dissent.
4.
Data Security Risks
- Facial data breaches could have irreversible consequences—unlike passwords, faces can’t be changed.
- Hackers could misuse biometric databases.
5.
Lack of Regulation & Oversight
- Many jurisdictions lack clear laws on how facial recognition can be used, by whom, and under what conditions.
- Corporate use raises ethical concerns about consent, transparency, and exploitation.
In Summary:
- Proponents see facial recognition as a tool for safety, efficiency, and innovation.
- Critics warn of privacy loss, discrimination, and the potential for abuse.
Many experts argue for strong regulation and limited, transparent deployment rather than unrestricted use
0 -
So your argument is it’s expanding use generally and not football per se.ShootersHillGuru said:
I’m really not sure how much clearer I can make it. I think until there are laws in place that safeguard it use I don’t think it should be used at all. I can repeat that I’m already happy that it’s used in major transport hubs and in other sensitive locations because I realise it’s important for our security. Forget football stadia it’s no more or less important or unique than having it in IKEA or the Co-op Not necessary.valleynick66 said:
To catch criminals. It’s that simple isn’t it if supporting the police. People may be banned but attempt to gain entry is another.ShootersHillGuru said:
What’s the justification for using it is more important. I’ve outlined the reasons why I don’t think it’s yet safe to be used anywhere outside of the exceptions I mentioned. Those are the current disadvantages. You explain what the advantages are for its use at let’s say for arguments sake The Valley.valleynick66 said:
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?ShootersHillGuru said:
I’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.bobmunro said:Live Facial Recognition Technology should not be confused with CCTV. Some interesting points here:Given this sustained pressure, it is striking that no dedicated legal framework has yet been introduced. In the absence of clear statutory safeguards, the expansion of LFR risks undermining public trust, eroding civil liberties, and enabling discriminatory surveillance practices. To navigate the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties, any deployment of such surveillance tools must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in law.There needs to be consultation (which is all the FSA is calling for), meaningful dialogue with law enforcement agencies and the ICO, and there needs to be legislation to regulate its use.
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
The point I’m trying to make but which you don’t seem to address is what’s unique about using it a football ground that is the worry?Why aren’t you concerned that Morrisons supermarket may use it by comparison ?
Or are you voicing concerns more generally only and in which case it’s not a football specific thing?
I’ve not seen a concern that is specific to football when we already share many details with them.In which case we digressed from
the original topic which was CAST engaging with the club.For what it’s worth I have no issue with the wider use in all environments. I see it as how we have evolved and it likely protects me more than it inconveniences me.1 -
All my comments made it clear that the issue of FRT was a broader societal issue that needed a national debate. Happily I think there will be legislation that makes sure FRT is used appropriately and with adequate safeguards.valleynick66 said:
So your argument is it’s expanding use generally and not football per se.ShootersHillGuru said:
I’m really not sure how much clearer I can make it. I think until there are laws in place that safeguard it use I don’t think it should be used at all. I can repeat that I’m already happy that it’s used in major transport hubs and in other sensitive locations because I realise it’s important for our security. Forget football stadia it’s no more or less important or unique than having it in IKEA or the Co-op Not necessary.valleynick66 said:
To catch criminals. It’s that simple isn’t it if supporting the police. People may be banned but attempt to gain entry is another.ShootersHillGuru said:
What’s the justification for using it is more important. I’ve outlined the reasons why I don’t think it’s yet safe to be used anywhere outside of the exceptions I mentioned. Those are the current disadvantages. You explain what the advantages are for its use at let’s say for arguments sake The Valley.valleynick66 said:
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?ShootersHillGuru said:
I’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.bobmunro said:Live Facial Recognition Technology should not be confused with CCTV. Some interesting points here:Given this sustained pressure, it is striking that no dedicated legal framework has yet been introduced. In the absence of clear statutory safeguards, the expansion of LFR risks undermining public trust, eroding civil liberties, and enabling discriminatory surveillance practices. To navigate the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties, any deployment of such surveillance tools must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in law.There needs to be consultation (which is all the FSA is calling for), meaningful dialogue with law enforcement agencies and the ICO, and there needs to be legislation to regulate its use.
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
The point I’m trying to make but which you don’t seem to address is what’s unique about using it a football ground that is the worry?Why aren’t you concerned that Morrisons supermarket may use it by comparison ?
Or are you voicing concerns more generally only and in which case it’s not a football specific thing?
I’ve not seen a concern that is specific to football when we already share many details with them.In which case we digressed from
the original topic which was CAST engaging with the club.For what it’s worth I have no issue with the wider use in all environments. I see it as how we have evolved and it likely protects me more than it inconveniences me.0 -
If it’s used to stop a terrorist getting into the ground I’m a fan.
if it’s used to stop me passing my season ticket to my brother when I can’t go, I’m not a fan.
3 -
What if it does both?SporadicAddick said:If it’s used to stop a terrorist getting into the ground I’m a fan.
if it’s used to stop me passing my season ticket to my brother when I can’t go, I’m not a fan.0 -
If it’s used to stop me passing my season ticket to my brother when I can’t go, I’m not a fan.ThreadKiller said:
What if it does both?SporadicAddick said:If it’s used to stop a terrorist getting into the ground I’m a fan.
if it’s used to stop me passing my season ticket to my brother when I can’t go, I’m not a fan.1
