Little doubt that facial recognition would have significant benefits for security and in combating crime but you have to weigh up the benefits against wider implications of privacy and potential abuse. The argument is still up for grabs for me but I would like the debate not for this technology just to become accepted through the back door.
Little doubt that facial recognition would have significant benefits for security and in combating crime but you have to weigh up the benefits against wider implications of privacy and potential abuse. The argument is still up for grabs for me but I would like the debate not for this technology just to become accepted through the back door.
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.
Right and that definitely wasn’t possible, if desired, with the current CCTV
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.
Right and that definitely wasn’t possible, if desired, with the current CCTV
Sure, but it would have taken a lot of hassle and manpower. Having a future option of sn automated (probably unreliable) system might be more appealing to any owner looking to squash protests.
The Club has confirmed that there are no current plans to install face recognition technology at The Valley.
Which begs the question of why CAST felt it necessary to frame their annoucement as they did?
As in, letting their members know they had written to the club to raise it?
Wasn’t particularly an announcement, until someone put it on here
Well it was on your website and as this is a Charlton Athletic forum taking about Charlton Athletic matters, where is the issue of that link being placed on here?
If you and your fellow trust board members had awaited the reply from the club in the first place , then no one outside your committee would have been none the wiser
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.
Well the club has announced we won't be getting facial recognition so I shall continue to give my season ticket to mates when I can't attend. Hope this doesn't upset you too much.
I don't think this is about someone using his mates ticket. No one gives a shit about that at our level. It's about keeping tabs on people, and tbh im not that comfortable with being under constant surveillance.
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.
Well the club has announced we won't be getting facial recognition so I shall continue to give my season ticket to mates when I can't attend. Hope this doesn't upset you too much.
It doesn't upset me at all!
Presumably, your mates would accept being "caught" by a person. And, if so, why would they object to being "caught" by cameras?
The point I am making is that, if anyone is concerned about getting caught by technology, then they should be opposed to the rule, rather than the method of policing it.
I don't think this is about someone using his mates ticket. No one gives a shit about that at our level. It's about keeping tabs on people, and tbh im not that comfortable with being under constant surveillance.
It's not really "constant" surveillance though. It's more like a couple of minutes every other week.
"Constant" surveillance is more like having apps on your phone, using social media, driving a car, walking through towns, being in a shop... I imagine you do some of these things more often and for longer than you spend time going through the turnstiles at The Valley.
The Club has confirmed that there are no current plans to install face recognition technology at The Valley.
Which begs the question of why CAST felt it necessary to frame their annoucement as they did?
As in, letting their members know they had written to the club to raise it?
Wasn’t particularly an announcement, until someone put it on here
Well it was on your website and as this is a Charlton Athletic forum taking about Charlton Athletic matters, where is the issue of that link being placed on here?
If you and your fellow trust board members had awaited the reply from the club in the first place , then no one outside your committee would have been none the wiser
Absolutely no issue on the link being posted here- in fact, it’s welcomed!
But to call it an announcement, isn’t quite accurate nor it is something that needed to be hotly debated (CAST actually following FSA Lead and asking the question) rather than it being just an update to say said question was asked.
Certainly shouldn’t have been hushed up or hidden as you’re suggesting it should have, it’s in the general interest of fans- and with news that it’s being implemented at other championship grounds, and with The Valley Spruce up including turnstile updates/fixes - it certainly was something to be concerned about!
Unfortunately CAST are damned if they do, damned if they don’t - which is very tiresome, especially when the trust only work voluntarily to benefit the club and its fanbase!
I don't think this is about someone using his mates ticket. No one gives a shit about that at our level. It's about keeping tabs on people, and tbh im not that comfortable with being under constant surveillance.
It's not really "constant" surveillance though. It's more like a couple of minutes every other week.
"Constant" surveillance is more like having apps on your phone, using social media, driving a car, walking through towns, being in a shop... I imagine you do some of these things more often and for longer than you spend time going through the turnstiles at The Valley.
Maybe a wrong choice of word on my behalf there tbf. Im uncomfortable with it though and not just for me but for my (young adult) children. Just like im uncomfortable with the eyes on social media from foreign countries (probably our own too) and the way information could be shared.
I don't think this is about someone using his mates ticket. No one gives a shit about that at our level. It's about keeping tabs on people, and tbh im not that comfortable with being under constant surveillance.
It's not really "constant" surveillance though. It's more like a couple of minutes every other week.
"Constant" surveillance is more like having apps on your phone, using social media, driving a car, walking through towns, being in a shop... I imagine you do some of these things more often and for longer than you spend time going through the turnstiles at The Valley.
Maybe a wrong choice of word on my behalf there tbf. Im uncomfortable with it though and not just for me but for my (young adult) children. Just like im uncomfortable with the eyes on social media from foreign countries (probably our own too) and the way information could be shared.
Fair enough. Can you be specific about what you're uncomfortable with?
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.
I think you are confusing a hijab with a niqab or the burkha or balaclava or those so called ultras at Palace.
The Club has confirmed that there are no current plans to install face recognition technology at The Valley.
Which begs the question of why CAST felt it necessary to frame their annoucement as they did?
As in, letting their members know they had written to the club to raise it?
Wasn’t particularly an announcement, until someone put it on here
Well it was on your website and as this is a Charlton Athletic forum taking about Charlton Athletic matters, where is the issue of that link being placed on here?
If you and your fellow trust board members had awaited the reply from the club in the first place , then no one outside your committee would have been none the wiser
Absolutely no issue on the link being posted here- in fact, it’s welcomed!
But to call it an announcement, isn’t quite accurate nor it is something that needed to be hotly debated (CAST actually following FSA Lead and asking the question) rather than it being just an update to say said question was asked.
Certainly shouldn’t have been hushed up or hidden as you’re suggesting it should have, it’s in the general interest of fans- and with news that it’s being implemented at other championship grounds, and with The Valley Spruce up including turnstile updates/fixes - it certainly was something to be concerned about!
Unfortunately CAST are damned if they do, damned if they don’t - which is very tiresome, especially when the trust only work voluntarily to benefit the club and its fanbase!
You’ll never please everyone (AMHIK), but keep up the good fight/work 👍
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
Comments
Hope this doesn't upset you too much.
Presumably, your mates would accept being "caught" by a person. And, if so, why would they object to being "caught" by cameras?
The point I am making is that, if anyone is concerned about getting caught by technology, then they should be opposed to the rule, rather than the method of policing it.
"Constant" surveillance is more like having apps on your phone, using social media, driving a car, walking through towns, being in a shop... I imagine you do some of these things more often and for longer than you spend time going through the turnstiles at The Valley.
Isn't my gig anymore so don't have a scooby.
https://www.castrust.org/2025/06/facial-recognition-technology/
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
Kindle
Smartphone
ipad
laptop
satnav
smart TV
smart speaker (Alexa)
etc, etc