I assume those who don't agree with it don't use the e-gates in airports either
I don't funnily enough, all this stuff is fine until it isn't. It's always sold under the pretence of speed and making life easier. Someone else correctly said, rarely is this stuff, if ever for the benefit of the user
I have never really taken much notice before but got some cash out today and my face was on the screen via a camera and then popped into M&S and there I was again, on the screen when I tapped my card.
If you walk past dozens of police officers, some with cameras, to go to a football match, with potentially dozens of cameras, some of which are pointing at the crowd and public-access areas, and sit next to thousands of fans holding video cameras and you have a season ticket - which you have to show - with your name on it, linked to your email address, home address, bank details and more, and you're not banned from the stadium or a wanted criminal, why would you be worried about being recognised on a camera that's specifically there to find criminals, law-breakers and others who may be breaking, bending or ignoring rules?
Every time you go to a football match, if you're a season ticket holder, you can be tracked, traced, filmed, photographed, witnessed. Why would one more, effective means of weeding out wrong'uns be a problem to those that aren't wrong'uns?
I’ve been told in posts above the issue isn’t football specifically; more it’s general increased usage.
If you walk past dozens of police officers, some with cameras, to go to a football match, with potentially dozens of cameras, some of which are pointing at the crowd and public-access areas, and sit next to thousands of fans holding video cameras and you have a season ticket - which you have to show - with your name on it, linked to your email address, home address, bank details and more, and you're not banned from the stadium or a wanted criminal, why would you be worried about being recognised on a camera that's specifically there to find criminals, law-breakers and others who may be breaking, bending or ignoring rules?
Every time you go to a football match, if you're a season ticket holder, you can be tracked, traced, filmed, photographed, witnessed. Why would one more, effective means of weeding out wrong'uns be a problem to those that aren't wrong'uns?
I’ve been told in posts above the issue isn’t football specifically; more it’s general increased usage.
That doesn't really answer my question
Indeed.
I agree with you. I see no issue with it at a football ground and no additional challenges occur to me than already exist.
If you walk past dozens of police officers, some with cameras, to go to a football match, with potentially dozens of cameras, some of which are pointing at the crowd and public-access areas, and sit next to thousands of fans holding video cameras and you have a season ticket - which you have to show - with your name on it, linked to your email address, home address, bank details and more, and you're not banned from the stadium or a wanted criminal, why would you be worried about being recognised on a camera that's specifically there to find criminals, law-breakers and others who may be breaking, bending or ignoring rules?
Every time you go to a football match, if you're a season ticket holder, you can be tracked, traced, filmed, photographed, witnessed. Why would one more, effective means of weeding out wrong'uns be a problem to those that aren't wrong'uns?
I’ve been told in posts above the issue isn’t football specifically; more it’s general increased usage.
That doesn't really answer my question
Indeed.
I agree with you. I see no issue with it at a football ground and no additional challenges occur to me than already exist.
Again, that doesn't answer the question. And, I've not given any opinion to which you could either agree or otherwise.
If you walk past dozens of police officers, some with cameras, to go to a football match, with potentially dozens of cameras, some of which are pointing at the crowd and public-access areas, and sit next to thousands of fans holding video cameras and you have a season ticket - which you have to show - with your name on it, linked to your email address, home address, bank details and more, and you're not banned from the stadium or a wanted criminal, why would you be worried about being recognised on a camera that's specifically there to find criminals, law-breakers and others who may be breaking, bending or ignoring rules?
Every time you go to a football match, if you're a season ticket holder, you can be tracked, traced, filmed, photographed, witnessed. Why would one more, effective means of weeding out wrong'uns be a problem to those that aren't wrong'uns?
I’ve been told in posts above the issue isn’t football specifically; more it’s general increased usage.
That doesn't really answer my question
Indeed.
I agree with you. I see no issue with it at a football ground and no additional challenges occur to me than already exist.
Again, that doesn't answer the question. And, I've not given any opinion to which you could either agree or otherwise.
I agreed my (earlier) comment didn’t answer your question !
I thought however this part of my post did address your question: ‘I see no issue with it at a football ground and no additional challenges occur to me than already exist. ‘
I think you are being rather pedantic if that doesn’t address ‘why does one more …be a problem..’ etc.
But for the sake of clarity in my view the answer is I can’t see why anyone would be worried / there would be a problem.
If you walk past dozens of police officers, some with cameras, to go to a football match, with potentially dozens of cameras, some of which are pointing at the crowd and public-access areas, and sit next to thousands of fans holding video cameras and you have a season ticket - which you have to show - with your name on it, linked to your email address, home address, bank details and more, and you're not banned from the stadium or a wanted criminal, why would you be worried about being recognised on a camera that's specifically there to find criminals, law-breakers and others who may be breaking, bending or ignoring rules?
Every time you go to a football match, if you're a season ticket holder, you can be tracked, traced, filmed, photographed, witnessed. Why would one more, effective means of weeding out wrong'uns be a problem to those that aren't wrong'uns?
I’ve been told in posts above the issue isn’t football specifically; more it’s general increased usage.
That doesn't really answer my question
Indeed.
I agree with you. I see no issue with it at a football ground and no additional challenges occur to me than already exist.
Again, that doesn't answer the question. And, I've not given any opinion to which you could either agree or otherwise.
I agreed my (earlier) comment didn’t answer your question !
I thought however this part of my post did address your question: ‘I see no issue with it at a football ground and no additional challenges occur to me than already exist. ‘
I think you are being rather pedantic if that doesn’t address ‘why does one more …be a problem..’ etc.
But for the sake of clarity in my view the answer is I can’t see why anyone would be worried / there would be a problem.
And that's totally fine - it's your prerogative.
But you don't seem to understand or accept that some people DO have a problem with it - which is also fine.
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’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
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.
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.
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.
I've been reading a few novels on holiday set at various times and places.
London 1914 - Munich 1936 - East Berlin 1966 - Kiev 2022 - Belfast any time?
It occurs to me how easy it has always been to suddenly become a criminal "wrong- un".
Jewish, gay, trans, catholic, Muslim, black, fat white male, childless female, adulterer, disabled, out of work, book lover, climate change denier or a partner / friend /acquaintance of any of the above.
Who knows what will happen in England - whose side will we be on? Hopefully the same one!
Anyway I'd like it if football was somewhere anyone can go as anonymously as reasonably possible without giving away where they are and who they're with to whoever happens to call themselves the "police" at the time.
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’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
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.
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.
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.
I've been reading a few novels on holiday set at various times and places.
London 1914 - Munich 1936 - East Berlin 1966 - Kiev 2022 - Belfast any time?
It occurs to me how easy it has always been to suddenly become a criminal "wrong- un".
Jewish, gay, trans, catholic, Muslim, black, fat white male, childless female, adulterer, disabled, out of work, book lover, climate change denier or a partner / friend /acquaintance of any of the above.
Who knows what will happen in England - whose side will we be on? Hopefully the same one!
Anyway I'd like it if football was somewhere anyone can go as anonymously as reasonably possible without giving away where they are and who they're with to whoever happens to call themselves the "police" at the time.
This is really interesting. Because it shows how easily people can be criminalised by authoritarian governments for being what we know now - and should always have known - simply who they are. None of those categories of people should be regarded as criminals or in any way beyond the law.
But, to ensure that, it's the law that needs to be kept in check, not the means of policing it. In other words, it should never be criminal to be a Muslim. But CCTC, or face recognition technology, should be used, legally, to find people - whatever their background - who are wanted criminals. It's not the technology that needs to be "righted", it's the law.
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’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
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.
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.
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.
I've been reading a few novels on holiday set at various times and places.
London 1914 - Munich 1936 - East Berlin 1966 - Kiev 2022 - Belfast any time?
It occurs to me how easy it has always been to suddenly become a criminal "wrong- un".
Jewish, gay, trans, catholic, Muslim, black, fat white male, childless female, adulterer, disabled, out of work, book lover, climate change denier or a partner / friend /acquaintance of any of the above.
Who knows what will happen in England - whose side will we be on? Hopefully the same one!
Anyway I'd like it if football was somewhere anyone can go as anonymously as reasonably possible without giving away where they are and who they're with to whoever happens to call themselves the "police" at the time.
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’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
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.
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.
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.
I've been reading a few novels on holiday set at various times and places.
London 1914 - Munich 1936 - East Berlin 1966 - Kiev 2022 - Belfast any time?
It occurs to me how easy it has always been to suddenly become a criminal "wrong- un".
Jewish, gay, trans, catholic, Muslim, black, fat white male, childless female, adulterer, disabled, out of work, book lover, climate change denier or a partner / friend /acquaintance of any of the above.
Who knows what will happen in England - whose side will we be on? Hopefully the same one!
Anyway I'd like it if football was somewhere anyone can go as anonymously as reasonably possible without giving away where they are and who they're with to whoever happens to call themselves the "police" at the time.
This is really interesting. Because it shows how easily people can be criminalised by authoritarian governments for being what we know now - and should always have known - simply who they are. None of those categories of people should be regarded as criminals or in any way beyond the law.
But, to ensure that, it's the law that needs to be kept in check, not the means of policing it. In other words, it should never be criminal to be a Muslim. But CCTC, or face recognition technology, should be used, legally, to find people - whatever their background - who are wanted criminals. It's not the technology that needs to be "righted", it's the law.
In principle, you're right but often those needed to be kept in check are in charge of the law and can change it, it's exactly what has happened in the US recently. The question about facial recognition is if you trust those who have it in their hands.
To bring it back to the original topic, the FSA clearly want to know whose hands fans data will be in and what it will be used for. I think those are fair questions to ask of any football club, especially one who had a big cyber attack last year.
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’d say justification for its use. Not justification for it not being used. Clear and significant advantages.
But I ask again what’s the issue with using it in a football ground that concerns?
I just can’t immediately think of a disadvantage.
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.
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.
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.
I've been reading a few novels on holiday set at various times and places.
London 1914 - Munich 1936 - East Berlin 1966 - Kiev 2022 - Belfast any time?
It occurs to me how easy it has always been to suddenly become a criminal "wrong- un".
Jewish, gay, trans, catholic, Muslim, black, fat white male, childless female, adulterer, disabled, out of work, book lover, climate change denier or a partner / friend /acquaintance of any of the above.
Who knows what will happen in England - whose side will we be on? Hopefully the same one!
Anyway I'd like it if football was somewhere anyone can go as anonymously as reasonably possible without giving away where they are and who they're with to whoever happens to call themselves the "police" at the time.
The two specific books which set me thinking were indeed Precipice and a book called "A Spy at War" by Charles Beaumont set in Kyiv.
The factual bits of both are "literally" incredible while the fictional bits are merely unbelievable!
Sorry - the other locations and dates are just from various books I've read where the existence of special "laws" and "police" (Gestapo - Stasi - KPG - who knows what in Belfast?) have made it a good idea for anyone to be as anonymous as possible!
Comments
I thought however this part of my post did address your question: ‘I see no issue with it at a football ground and no additional challenges occur to me than already exist. ‘
I think you are being rather pedantic if that doesn’t address ‘why does one more …be a problem..’ etc.
But for the sake of clarity in my view the answer is I can’t see why anyone would be worried / there would be a problem.
But you don't seem to understand or accept that some people DO have a problem with it - which is also fine.
London 1914 - Munich 1936 - East Berlin 1966 - Kiev 2022 - Belfast any time?
It occurs to me how easy it has always been to suddenly become a criminal "wrong- un".
Jewish, gay, trans, catholic, Muslim, black, fat white male, childless female, adulterer, disabled, out of work, book lover, climate change denier or a partner / friend /acquaintance of any of the above.
Who knows what will happen in England - whose side will we be on? Hopefully the same one!
Anyway I'd like it if football was somewhere anyone can go as anonymously as reasonably possible without giving away where they are and who they're with to whoever happens to call themselves the "police" at the time.
But, to ensure that, it's the law that needs to be kept in check, not the means of policing it. In other words, it should never be criminal to be a Muslim. But CCTC, or face recognition technology, should be used, legally, to find people - whatever their background - who are wanted criminals. It's not the technology that needs to be "righted", it's the law.
Munich 1936 ?
Berlin 1966 Funeral in Berlin?
No idea on the other two @stevexreeve
To bring it back to the original topic, the FSA clearly want to know whose hands fans data will be in and what it will be used for. I think those are fair questions to ask of any football club, especially one who had a big cyber attack last year.
The factual bits of both are "literally" incredible while the fictional bits are merely unbelievable!
Sorry - the other locations and dates are just from various books I've read where the existence of special "laws" and "police" (Gestapo - Stasi - KPG - who knows what in Belfast?) have made it a good idea for anyone to be as anonymous as possible!