Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Facial Recognition Technology at the Valley?
Comments
-
I think CAST are absolutely right in identifying the need to know exactly what data is stored and for what specific purposes.It’s exactly how a fan representative body can raise awareness and take responsibility for looking at club initiatives that impact fans in ways not immediately clear.As is clear from comments, some don’t value their personal data. Don’t appreciate the potential for data to be abused for nefarious purposes.Use of data should be limited. What are the objectives? For example does the system only screen images at entry to confirm you are a CAFC member and are not a banned individual. If you are not a member and not banned, your image should be of no value and not stored except as a record of an unidentified purchaser of a ticket.
Is it automatically linked to ST data - people are assuming yes. But if not, the current process of only confirming validity of the pass remains unaffected. If it is linked, then data can be used to enforce ST conditions. It needs to be absolutely clear to fans how data is being used.Further, the club should not be permitted to pull up personal data to identify individuals attending unless an incident is referred to the police.Heaven forbid, but say protests begin, imagine how the RD regime would have weaponised the data.You only need to look at how the current US Administration is able to misuse data in the absence of individual protection under the law to limit the use of data for undisclosed purposes.24 -
I have experimented trying different accents on the First Direct phone service but they have never fooled their voice recognition system.4
-
In fact after a little research the UK is the fourth highest surveilled society on the planet with over six million cctv cameras. The highest being China, USA and Germany. I certainly don’t have a problem with cctv cameras because it helps solve crimes but I am not yet convinced that having facial recognition technology outside of obvious security risk areas like airports and stations etc is necessarily a good thing. It’s why the discussion needs to take place. I don’t think it’s quite as black and white as “anyone not breaking the law would oppose it”.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A walk down literally any road, back ally, country lane here, would suggest not. I'm also not sure why anyone who isn't breaking the law would oppose it.ShootersHillGuru said:Forgetting Charlton and even football for a minute, I suspect that this is going to be a discussion for society in general over the very near future. Facial recognition technology is with us already and there will be pressure from the police, security services and others to have it practically everywhere. The UK is already the most surveilled society on the planet and I don’t see any reason why the government won’t want to see it rolled out and eventually replace all cctv installations. I have no knowledge but I’m willing to bet it’s already at all airports, main railway stations and other strategic locations. I’m sure someone here will have better insight than me.6 -
14 -
It's not like you to parrot misleading statements that appear, unfiltered, on certain media outlets. Lots of people do that, but I have always thought you take better care than most people to avoid doing that.ShootersHillGuru said:Forgetting Charlton and even football for a minute, I suspect that this is going to be a discussion for society in general over the very near future. Facial recognition technology is with us already and there will be pressure from the police, security services and others to have it practically everywhere. The UK is already the most surveilled society on the planet and I don’t see any reason why the government won’t want to see it rolled out and eventually replace all cctv installations. I have no knowledge but I’m willing to bet it’s already at all airports, main railway stations and other strategic locations. I’m sure someone here will have better insight than me.
The UK is not the most surveilled society on the planet. David Murakami‑Wood came up with the claim in 2006. It may have been true at that time, but it's not now.
We have between 4 million and 6 million public surveillance cameras in the UK. United States has around 85 million. China - 500 million. We're a long way behin those two in both totals and per capita numbers. India has about ten times as many as we do, with per capita numbers in major cities far exceeding ours.
In London, there are facial recognition cameras in public in Croydon, heavily camouflaged and only monitored when there are police officers nearby. In addition we have mobile facial recognition cameras in vans. Four of them. In Moscow, there are 213,000 facial recognition cameras.
Do they cause problems? Yes they do? Many? Well, Shaun Thompson was briefly detained - for 20 minutes - following an erroneous identification (a family member was a wanted person). And a woman had her bag searched and was asked to leave Home Bargains in London, after a false identification.0 -
Surprised they don’t have it at Wigan yet - George Orwell’s hometown.2
-
I’ve corrected my initial comment above. Perhaps you needed to read that before having a pop.Chizz said:
It's not like you to parrot misleading statements that appear, unfiltered, on certain media outlets. Lots of people do that, but I have always thought you take better care than most people to avoid doing that.ShootersHillGuru said:Forgetting Charlton and even football for a minute, I suspect that this is going to be a discussion for society in general over the very near future. Facial recognition technology is with us already and there will be pressure from the police, security services and others to have it practically everywhere. The UK is already the most surveilled society on the planet and I don’t see any reason why the government won’t want to see it rolled out and eventually replace all cctv installations. I have no knowledge but I’m willing to bet it’s already at all airports, main railway stations and other strategic locations. I’m sure someone here will have better insight than me.
The UK is not the most surveilled society on the planet. David Murakami‑Wood came up with the claim in 2006. It may have been true at that time, but it's not now.
We have between 4 million and 6 million public surveillance cameras in the UK. United States has around 85 million. China - 500 million. We're a long way behin those two in both totals and per capita numbers. India has about ten times as many as we do, with per capita numbers in major cities far exceeding ours.
In London, there are facial recognition cameras in public in Croydon, heavily camouflaged and only monitored when there are police officers nearby. In addition we have mobile facial recognition cameras in vans. Four of them. In Moscow, there are 213,000 facial recognition cameras.
Do they cause problems? Yes they do? Many? Well, Shaun Thompson was briefly detained - for 20 minutes - following an erroneous identification (a family member was a wanted person). And a woman had her bag searched and was asked to leave Home Bargains in London, after a false identification.1 -
Well done CAST to flag this up.The argument "Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear" is incorrect. Privacy isn't about hiding a wrong, it' s complex human issue which includes rights of free speech, free association and informed consent among other things.As CAST rightly points out where and what happens to this data? Where is the opt-out? Is there a transparent and simple process to remove my data if I so wish? and how can I challenge a perceived wrong?Shops, airports etc all have it and it could be argued that this is the price we pay for doing business. But it doesn't mean its right. We shouldn't easily give these hard-fought rights away.5
-
It’s not reached 1984 up there yet.Valiantphil said:Surprised they don’t have it at Wigan yet - George Orwell’s hometown.11 -
What hard won ‘right’ is being taken away ?osteoaddick said:Well done CAST to flag this up.The argument "Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear" is incorrect. Privacy isn't about hiding a wrong, it' s complex human issue which includes rights of free speech, free association and informed consent among other things.As CAST rightly points out where and what happens to this data? Where is the opt-out? Is there a transparent and simple process to remove my data if I so wish? and how can I challenge a perceived wrong?Shops, airports etc all have it and it could be argued that this is the price we pay for doing business. But it doesn't mean it’s right. We shouldn't easily give these hard-fought rights away.
The fact that a private venue you choose to attend may adopt this will not harm you in any practical way I can think I of.
3 - Sponsored links:
-
It is inevitable. They have been doing it down the Toolbox for a couple of seasons. More than two teeth and you ain't getting in...9
-
Wasn’t George Orwell born in Motihari, and then grew up in Henley on Thames?1
-
-
3 -
It is opposed until:“transparent and meaningful dialogue has taken place at a national level with fans, leagues, the FA, civil rights groups and the Information Commissioner’s Office on its legality and privacy concerns.”That's all the FSA are arguing for - consultation before any implementation. It is entirely reasonable, and in line with the ICO to understand:- Why the data is being collected - the purpose(s)- How it is stored (must be secure and accessed by only authorised individuals)- How it is used- Who has access to the data (there must be valid reasons why the data is available to specific individuals/entities)- How long it is stored (must only be stored for as long as it is needed)- The individual's right to access the data held on them and the process (DSAR)- Who is the Data ControllerAll of the above is entirely valid and links to Article 8 of the ECHR and the ICOI am not aware that any of the named clubs that have installed face recognition have done any of the above. It is not about yes or no - it's about how, why, when, who and so on.
10 -
Absolutely not having a pop. I wrote that first paragraph very carefully to make it clear that I'm not implying criticism of you, and to say I know you are almost always very careful not to share stuff that isn't true. I was instead of sinking criticism, trying to correct a widely-shared, misleading claim.ShootersHillGuru said:
I’ve corrected my initial comment above. Perhaps you needed to read that before having a pop.Chizz said:
It's not like you to parrot misleading statements that appear, unfiltered, on certain media outlets. Lots of people do that, but I have always thought you take better care than most people to avoid doing that.ShootersHillGuru said:Forgetting Charlton and even football for a minute, I suspect that this is going to be a discussion for society in general over the very near future. Facial recognition technology is with us already and there will be pressure from the police, security services and others to have it practically everywhere. The UK is already the most surveilled society on the planet and I don’t see any reason why the government won’t want to see it rolled out and eventually replace all cctv installations. I have no knowledge but I’m willing to bet it’s already at all airports, main railway stations and other strategic locations. I’m sure someone here will have better insight than me.
The UK is not the most surveilled society on the planet. David Murakami‑Wood came up with the claim in 2006. It may have been true at that time, but it's not now.
We have between 4 million and 6 million public surveillance cameras in the UK. United States has around 85 million. China - 500 million. We're a long way behin those two in both totals and per capita numbers. India has about ten times as many as we do, with per capita numbers in major cities far exceeding ours.
In London, there are facial recognition cameras in public in Croydon, heavily camouflaged and only monitored when there are police officers nearby. In addition we have mobile facial recognition cameras in vans. Four of them. In Moscow, there are 213,000 facial recognition cameras.
Do they cause problems? Yes they do? Many? Well, Shaun Thompson was briefly detained - for 20 minutes - following an erroneous identification (a family member was a wanted person). And a woman had her bag searched and was asked to leave Home Bargains in London, after a false identification.3 -
It was?!ElfsborgAddick said:Facial recognition here in Brazil is an everyday thing.
Example, assuming you have a mobile. Two weeks ago I wanted to go to exactly the same situation, a football match.
I registered to be a member, through the process they asked to take a photo(following the steps was easy).
My application was accepted.
I ordered a ticket and paid, all in 10 minutes.
My basket said I bought a ticket.
Admittedly I went to the ground early and they confirmed all was good, so next time I'll go 5 minutes before kick-off!
A major problem is this system naturally deters people only looking to go once in a while.1 -
I used to agree with that. But the world is changing rapidly. You never know what sort of government you might get in the future, and it could be one who would misuse the technology to, for example, crack down on opponents, protest and/or dissent.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A walk down literally any road, back ally, country lane here, would suggest not. I'm also not sure why anyone who isn't breaking the law would oppose it.ShootersHillGuru said:Forgetting Charlton and even football for a minute, I suspect that this is going to be a discussion for society in general over the very near future. Facial recognition technology is with us already and there will be pressure from the police, security services and others to have it practically everywhere. The UK is already the most surveilled society on the planet and I don’t see any reason why the government won’t want to see it rolled out and eventually replace all cctv installations. I have no knowledge but I’m willing to bet it’s already at all airports, main railway stations and other strategic locations. I’m sure someone here will have better insight than me.6 -
There's always something to get people's knickers in a twist isn't there? Some people aren't happy unless they're moaning about something....7
-
I need to get one of those Tom Cruise mission impossible masks, that'll do the trick.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Exactly.fenaddick said:
Precisely because I haven't broken the law and so do not need to have my specific movements checked up on. It's a mega step up from CCTV that is only happening in football grounds because of outdated stereotypes about football fans.Stu_of_Kunming said:
A walk down literally any road, back ally, country lane here, would suggest not. I'm also not sure why anyone who isn't breaking the law would oppose it.ShootersHillGuru said:Forgetting Charlton and even football for a minute, I suspect that this is going to be a discussion for society in general over the very near future. Facial recognition technology is with us already and there will be pressure from the police, security services and others to have it practically everywhere. The UK is already the most surveilled society on the planet and I don’t see any reason why the government won’t want to see it rolled out and eventually replace all cctv installations. I have no knowledge but I’m willing to bet it’s already at all airports, main railway stations and other strategic locations. I’m sure someone here will have better insight than me.0 -
Dark glasses, a Covid mask, and a stone in your shoe to alter your gait.Steven81 said:Will it still work if I decide to wear make up on weekday matches ?1 -
You realise you’re moaning about people moaning don’t you.Pelling1993 said:There's always something to get people's knickers in a twist isn't there? Some people aren't happy unless they're moaning about something....9 -
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.1 -
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.2
-
Is it ok for the club to deny entry to a person using someone else's season ticket?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.0 -
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.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.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)2 -
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.Chizz said:
Is it ok for the club to deny entry to a person using someone else's session ticket?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.1 -
And the Valley car park cameras are effective from today.THE PAID CAR PARK AT THE VALLEY IS NOW LIVE!The Valley paid car park is now live as at 01/07/25.By now you should be on the back-office system if not you will need to validate your vehicle at reception on arrival.If neither of the above have been done, then you will be issued a PCN from Nexus.Please make sure you are letting all your guests know to validate their parking on arrival.0
-
An aside about 'lending' one's ST to someone else. There is always a 'not transferable clause' .. thing is, if the ST holder can't make a game, it's not as if the club can 'resell' the seat which would remain empty but still be included in the attendance figures. A bit of a 'dog in the manger' attitude i m o0
