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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
That's your prerogative.
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.