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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?
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.
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?
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.
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?
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.
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.
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?
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.
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?
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.
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.
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?
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.
But which civil liberty do you believe is denied if facial recognition is used at a football ground? I thought that was your point.
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.
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?
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.
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?
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.
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.
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?
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.
But which civil liberty do you believe is denied if facial recognition is used at a football ground? I thought that was your point.
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.
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.
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?
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.
But how is their personal data being used in the context of your image?
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.
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.
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?
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.
But which civil liberty do you believe is denied if facial recognition is used at a football ground? I thought that was your point.
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.
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.
Well the example above was a banned person being identified. That is good I would think and is a safety thing.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
How do you find the criminals without looking at everyone?
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’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.
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’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.
So your argument is it’s expanding use generally and not football per se.
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.
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’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.
So your argument is it’s expanding use generally and not football per se.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx5528xrzko
Seriously though a good thing.
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 not seeing the football specific concern in the same way I’m not worried about shopping in Morrisons.
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?
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.
Arguments For Widespread Use of Facial Recognition Technology
1.
Public Safety & Crime Prevention
2.
Enhanced Security
3.
Efficiency & Convenience
4.
Business & Commercial Uses
5.
Lost & Missing Persons
❌
Arguments Against Widespread Use of Facial Recognition Technology
1.
Privacy Violations
2.
Bias & Inaccuracy
3.
Chilling Effects on Freedom
4.
Data Security Risks
5.
Lack of Regulation & Oversight
In Summary:
Many experts argue for strong regulation and limited, transparent deployment rather than unrestricted use
the original topic which was CAST engaging with the club.
if it’s used to stop me passing my season ticket to my brother when I can’t go, I’m not a fan.