Many years ago people who were banned from their local football ground had to report to the police before the game and were detained until the game was over. Questionable but true.
Many years ago people who were banned from their local football ground had to report to the police before the game and were detained until the game was over. Questionable but true.
Think it was more to sign in to a police station rather than sit there for the duration of the game: pretty sure eltham nick there was a window between 3 and 4 though stand to be corrected:
Get up, catch up on the internet, maybe a quick read of the kindle. Pick up mobile phone (which tracks every step) and leave for work. Use bank card on the bus on the way to the station. Swipe in at station A, swipe out at station B, begin walk to work through numerous security cameras. Pop into Asda for a sarnie, note the self service till is filming you with technology that is being introduced despite some customer's concerns. Arrive at work, use ID card to get through reception and finger print to get access to floor. Book the gym for lunchtime using the app and scan with phone on arrival for access. Rinse and repeat.
There is no escape from Big Brother, its too late, we're all doomed.
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Then you should avoid Morrison’s etc.
I can’t agree with you.
Proactive facial recognition in more locations is a better way to catch criminals.
I don’t see how it can be misused and am waiting for someone to provide an example that is new/ different to the current status associated with you being in the Charlton database or indeed a supermarket.
Mate that is absolutely your right to do and think and certainly not mine to convince you otherwise
I don't like it in Morrisons, Sainsbury's etc and IF they are using facial recognition software as well as CCTV then they should inform people. I don't have the same emotional attachment to supermarkets as I do to what goes on at The Valley though and I wouldn't behave the same at football necessarily as I would in the shops, maybe more swearing in the shops, but you know what I mean. Im happy for those shops to engage with me on their nectar or loyalty schemes and give me offers based on what shit I buy but thats as far as I want our intimacy to go.
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Mate that is absolutely your right to do and think and certainly not mine to convince you otherwise
I don't like it in Morrisons, Sainsbury's etc and IF they are using facial recognition software as well as CCTV then they should inform people. I don't have the same emotional attachment to supermarkets as I do to what goes on at The Valley though and I wouldn't behave the same at football necessarily as I would in the shops, maybe more swearing in the shops, but you know what I mean. Im happy for those shops to engage with me on their nectar or loyalty schemes and give me offers based on what shit I buy but thats as far as I want our intimacy to go.
Ok. But my point is what is it about facial recognition at a football ground that creates a new privacy issue not already there with CCTV or indeed anyone taking a picture?
I can’t think of a scenario that creates a new concern.
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Then you should avoid Morrison’s etc.
I can’t agree with you.
Proactive facial recognition in more locations is a better way to catch criminals.
I don’t see how it can be misused and am waiting for someone to provide an example that is new/ different to the current status associated with you being in the Charlton database or indeed a supermarket.
One of the biggest arguments against technology creep is not what effect it has now, but what it might have in a few years when there is a different political climate. You only have to look at what's happening in the US to see how a change in politics can result in very different risks from current technology. Consider, for instance, period tracking apps for women. I'm sure when women started using them, none of them expected Roe vs Wade to ever be overturned. Just because there's little risk now, doesn't mean that will be the case in the future.
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Then you should avoid Morrison’s etc.
I can’t agree with you.
Proactive facial recognition in more locations is a better way to catch criminals.
I don’t see how it can be misused and am waiting for someone to provide an example that is new/ different to the current status associated with you being in the Charlton database or indeed a supermarket.
One of the biggest arguments against technology creep is not what effect it has now, but what it might have in a few years when there is a different political climate. You only have to look at what's happening in the US to see how a change in politics can result in very different risks from current technology. Consider, for instance, period tracking apps for women. I'm sure when women started using them, none of them expected Roe vs Wade to ever be overturned. Just because there's little risk now, doesn't mean that will be the case in the future.
But equally you have to use things to see what evolves otherwise we stand still.
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Then you should avoid Morrison’s etc.
I can’t agree with you.
Proactive facial recognition in more locations is a better way to catch criminals.
I don’t see how it can be misused and am waiting for someone to provide an example that is new/ different to the current status associated with you being in the Charlton database or indeed a supermarket.
One of the biggest arguments against technology creep is not what effect it has now, but what it might have in a few years when there is a different political climate. You only have to look at what's happening in the US to see how a change in politics can result in very different risks from current technology. Consider, for instance, period tracking apps for women. I'm sure when women started using them, none of them expected Roe vs Wade to ever be overturned. Just because there's little risk now, doesn't mean that will be the case in the future.
But equally you have to use things to see what evolves otherwise we stand still.
My point remains I'm yet to hear a reason not to.
No. You've heard several reasons not to. Very good ones, at that. You just don't agree with any of them. Subtle difference, but an important one.
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Then you should avoid Morrison’s etc.
I can’t agree with you.
Proactive facial recognition in more locations is a better way to catch criminals.
I don’t see how it can be misused and am waiting for someone to provide an example that is new/ different to the current status associated with you being in the Charlton database or indeed a supermarket.
One of the biggest arguments against technology creep is not what effect it has now, but what it might have in a few years when there is a different political climate. You only have to look at what's happening in the US to see how a change in politics can result in very different risks from current technology. Consider, for instance, period tracking apps for women. I'm sure when women started using them, none of them expected Roe vs Wade to ever be overturned. Just because there's little risk now, doesn't mean that will be the case in the future.
But equally you have to use things to see what evolves otherwise we stand still.
My point remains I'm yet to hear a reason not to.
No. You've heard several reasons not to. Very good ones, at that. You just don't agree with any of them. Subtle difference, but an important one.
No I don’t believe I have.
To be clear what is the fear of facial recognition over and above CCTV at football?
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Then you should avoid Morrison’s etc.
I can’t agree with you.
Proactive facial recognition in more locations is a better way to catch criminals.
I don’t see how it can be misused and am waiting for someone to provide an example that is new/ different to the current status associated with you being in the Charlton database or indeed a supermarket.
One of the biggest arguments against technology creep is not what effect it has now, but what it might have in a few years when there is a different political climate. You only have to look at what's happening in the US to see how a change in politics can result in very different risks from current technology. Consider, for instance, period tracking apps for women. I'm sure when women started using them, none of them expected Roe vs Wade to ever be overturned. Just because there's little risk now, doesn't mean that will be the case in the future.
But equally you have to use things to see what evolves otherwise we stand still.
Im not in favour of this at football because of what it leads to as we have seen with CCTV. It enables the offence to occur, affecting people, then is about catching the person after the event. Its totally reactive which is bad. If it is essential it gets used at football we should be told and given a choice if we consent to our facial imagery and contours being held on a private business database with absolutely zero guarantees that won't be sold on or stolen.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
Then you should avoid Morrison’s etc.
I can’t agree with you.
Proactive facial recognition in more locations is a better way to catch criminals.
I don’t see how it can be misused and am waiting for someone to provide an example that is new/ different to the current status associated with you being in the Charlton database or indeed a supermarket.
One of the biggest arguments against technology creep is not what effect it has now, but what it might have in a few years when there is a different political climate. You only have to look at what's happening in the US to see how a change in politics can result in very different risks from current technology. Consider, for instance, period tracking apps for women. I'm sure when women started using them, none of them expected Roe vs Wade to ever be overturned. Just because there's little risk now, doesn't mean that will be the case in the future.
But equally you have to use things to see what evolves otherwise we stand still.
My point remains I'm yet to hear a reason not to.
Identity cards. Why not ?
Yep all for that too.
The world has evolved and a universal way of identifying ourselves for right to work etc all good.
We use ‘id’ in so many areas of our life already it can only be a good thing now.
At what point will you all realise you’re arguing with someone who isn’t going to change their mind because they fundamentally disagree? It’s fine to just agree to disagree and move on
At what point will you all realise you’re arguing with someone who isn’t going to change their mind because they fundamentally disagree? It’s fine to just agree to disagree and move on
Of course. But unless I’ve missed it I haven’t seen anyone articulate a current concern on its use at football.
I understand some may have reservations on its more widespread use and whilst I don’t share that I acknowledge it.
At what point will you all realise you’re arguing with someone who isn’t going to change their mind because they fundamentally disagree? It’s fine to just agree to disagree and move on
Of course. But unless I’ve missed it I haven’t seen anyone articulate a current concern on its use at football.
I understand some may have reservations on its more widespread use and whilst I don’t share that I acknowledge it.
It’s the football bit I don’t get that’s all.
Forget football specifically - it is no different to any other scenario. There is no specific objection because it's football grounds, we just happen to be discussing it on a football forum in the context of other clubs already installing the equipment and a subsequent question raised to the SMT in relation to the FSA adopted policy. This is about the general creep of LFR technology with no regulation, legislation or consultation on it's implementation, use, data protection and so on.
I repeat -all the FSA is asking for consultation BEFORE implementation.
Key principles under GDPR relevant to facial recognition include:
Lawfulness, Fairness, and Transparency: Data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner.
Purpose Limitation: Data should only be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes.
Data Minimisation: Only the data that is necessary for the specified purpose should be collected.
Accuracy: Personal data must be accurate and up-to-date.
Storage Limitation: Data should not be kept for longer than necessary.
Integrity and Confidentiality: Personal data must be processed securely to prevent unauthorised access or breaches.
And of the concerns:
Privacy Implications of Facial Recognition
While facial recognition can offer benefits such as security
enhancements and operational efficiency, it also presents considerable
privacy risks. Some of the key privacy implications include:
Surveillance Concerns Facial recognition can be
deployed in a variety of settings, from shopping centres to public
streets, potentially transforming these areas into spaces of constant
surveillance. This raises significant privacy concerns, especially when
individuals are unaware that their data is being collected and
processed. Unlike other forms of identification, faces are inherently
public, which makes facial recognition particularly invasive.
Potential for Misuse One of the primary concerns
surrounding facial recognition is the potential for misuse, especially
by law enforcement or governments. In some jurisdictions, facial
recognition has been used to track and monitor political dissidents or
protesters, raising concerns about human rights violations. The
technology’s ability to be weaponised for discriminatory purposes poses a
serious risk to privacy and civil liberties.
Risk of Data Breaches
Like all forms of digital data, facial recognition data is vulnerable
to cyberattacks and breaches. Given that biometric data is irreplaceable
(unlike passwords, which can be changed), a breach involving facial
recognition data can have long-lasting consequences. GDPR’s emphasis on
data security and breach notification plays a crucial role in mitigating
these risks.
Data Collection Without Consent A significant
challenge with facial recognition is that individuals often have little
control over whether or not their data is collected. Cameras placed in
public spaces can gather facial data without the explicit knowledge or
consent of those being recorded. This practice can violate GDPR’s
consent requirements and lead to legal challenges for organisations.
Bias and Discrimination Facial recognition
technology has been criticised for perpetuating racial and gender
biases. Studies have shown that certain facial recognition systems
perform poorly when identifying individuals with darker skin tones or
women, leading to potential discrimination. Under GDPR’s fairness
principle, such biases could result in unlawful data processing.
I put most of this up in a much earlier post, with links. You accept that some people have reservations (or stronger concerns) - so forget the context of football and then you can agree to disagree. Nobody is claiming that football is a special case.
At what point will you all realise you’re arguing with someone who isn’t going to change their mind because they fundamentally disagree? It’s fine to just agree to disagree and move on
Of course. But unless I’ve missed it I haven’t seen anyone articulate a current concern on its use at football.
I understand some may have reservations on its more widespread use and whilst I don’t share that I acknowledge it.
It’s the football bit I don’t get that’s all.
Forget football specifically - it is no different to any other scenario. There is no specific objection because it's football grounds, we just happen to be discussing it on a football forum in the context of other clubs already installing the equipment and a subsequent question raised to the SMT in relation to the FSA adopted policy. This is about the general creep of LFR technology with no regulation, legislation or consultation on it's implementation, use, data protection and so on.
I repeat -all the FSA is asking for consultation BEFORE implementation.
Key principles under GDPR relevant to facial recognition include:
Lawfulness, Fairness, and Transparency: Data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner.
Purpose Limitation: Data should only be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes.
Data Minimisation: Only the data that is necessary for the specified purpose should be collected.
Accuracy: Personal data must be accurate and up-to-date.
Storage Limitation: Data should not be kept for longer than necessary.
Integrity and Confidentiality: Personal data must be processed securely to prevent unauthorised access or breaches.
And of the concerns:
Privacy Implications of Facial Recognition
While facial recognition can offer benefits such as security
enhancements and operational efficiency, it also presents considerable
privacy risks. Some of the key privacy implications include:
Surveillance Concerns Facial recognition can be
deployed in a variety of settings, from shopping centres to public
streets, potentially transforming these areas into spaces of constant
surveillance. This raises significant privacy concerns, especially when
individuals are unaware that their data is being collected and
processed. Unlike other forms of identification, faces are inherently
public, which makes facial recognition particularly invasive.
Potential for Misuse One of the primary concerns
surrounding facial recognition is the potential for misuse, especially
by law enforcement or governments. In some jurisdictions, facial
recognition has been used to track and monitor political dissidents or
protesters, raising concerns about human rights violations. The
technology’s ability to be weaponised for discriminatory purposes poses a
serious risk to privacy and civil liberties.
Risk of Data Breaches
Like all forms of digital data, facial recognition data is vulnerable
to cyberattacks and breaches. Given that biometric data is irreplaceable
(unlike passwords, which can be changed), a breach involving facial
recognition data can have long-lasting consequences. GDPR’s emphasis on
data security and breach notification plays a crucial role in mitigating
these risks.
Data Collection Without Consent A significant
challenge with facial recognition is that individuals often have little
control over whether or not their data is collected. Cameras placed in
public spaces can gather facial data without the explicit knowledge or
consent of those being recorded. This practice can violate GDPR’s
consent requirements and lead to legal challenges for organisations.
Bias and Discrimination Facial recognition
technology has been criticised for perpetuating racial and gender
biases. Studies have shown that certain facial recognition systems
perform poorly when identifying individuals with darker skin tones or
women, leading to potential discrimination. Under GDPR’s fairness
principle, such biases could result in unlawful data processing.
I put most of this up in a much earlier post, with links. You accept that some people have reservations (or stronger concerns) - so forget the context of football and then you can agree to disagree. Nobody is claiming that football is a special case.
And as I said as a general thing I understand (but don’t share the worry) the point being made.
I find it odd that to address that we write to the football club however and not say an MP or existing businesses who use it but there you are.
Mate that is absolutely your right to do and think and certainly not mine to convince you otherwise
I don't like it in Morrisons, Sainsbury's etc and IF they are using facial recognition software as well as CCTV then they should inform people. I don't have the same emotional attachment to supermarkets as I do to what goes on at The Valley though and I wouldn't behave the same at football necessarily as I would in the shops, maybe more swearing in the shops, but you know what I mean. Im happy for those shops to engage with me on their nectar or loyalty schemes and give me offers based on what shit I buy but thats as far as I want our intimacy to go.
Ok. But my point is what is it about facial recognition at a football ground that creates a new privacy issue not already there with CCTV or indeed anyone taking a picture?
I can’t think of a scenario that creates a new concern.
Its because facial recognition maps to you personally and uniquely, CCTV does not
Its why I said about having DMA samples taken upon entry to football or anywhere for that matter. Nobody would consent to that
Wait for facial recognition at the bars in the ground, will cause chaos at half time. Theyll be blood spilled I'm sure. But at least the facial recognition can do the work of 500 coppers and will find the perps.
At what point will you all realise you’re arguing with someone who isn’t going to change their mind because they fundamentally disagree? It’s fine to just agree to disagree and move on
Of course. But unless I’ve missed it I haven’t seen anyone articulate a current concern on its use at football.
I understand some may have reservations on its more widespread use and whilst I don’t share that I acknowledge it.
It’s the football bit I don’t get that’s all.
Forget football specifically - it is no different to any other scenario. There is no specific objection because it's football grounds, we just happen to be discussing it on a football forum in the context of other clubs already installing the equipment and a subsequent question raised to the SMT in relation to the FSA adopted policy. This is about the general creep of LFR technology with no regulation, legislation or consultation on it's implementation, use, data protection and so on.
I repeat -all the FSA is asking for consultation BEFORE implementation.
Key principles under GDPR relevant to facial recognition include:
Lawfulness, Fairness, and Transparency: Data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner.
Purpose Limitation: Data should only be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes.
Data Minimisation: Only the data that is necessary for the specified purpose should be collected.
Accuracy: Personal data must be accurate and up-to-date.
Storage Limitation: Data should not be kept for longer than necessary.
Integrity and Confidentiality: Personal data must be processed securely to prevent unauthorised access or breaches.
And of the concerns:
Privacy Implications of Facial Recognition
While facial recognition can offer benefits such as security
enhancements and operational efficiency, it also presents considerable
privacy risks. Some of the key privacy implications include:
Surveillance Concerns Facial recognition can be
deployed in a variety of settings, from shopping centres to public
streets, potentially transforming these areas into spaces of constant
surveillance. This raises significant privacy concerns, especially when
individuals are unaware that their data is being collected and
processed. Unlike other forms of identification, faces are inherently
public, which makes facial recognition particularly invasive.
Potential for Misuse One of the primary concerns
surrounding facial recognition is the potential for misuse, especially
by law enforcement or governments. In some jurisdictions, facial
recognition has been used to track and monitor political dissidents or
protesters, raising concerns about human rights violations. The
technology’s ability to be weaponised for discriminatory purposes poses a
serious risk to privacy and civil liberties.
Risk of Data Breaches
Like all forms of digital data, facial recognition data is vulnerable
to cyberattacks and breaches. Given that biometric data is irreplaceable
(unlike passwords, which can be changed), a breach involving facial
recognition data can have long-lasting consequences. GDPR’s emphasis on
data security and breach notification plays a crucial role in mitigating
these risks.
Data Collection Without Consent A significant
challenge with facial recognition is that individuals often have little
control over whether or not their data is collected. Cameras placed in
public spaces can gather facial data without the explicit knowledge or
consent of those being recorded. This practice can violate GDPR’s
consent requirements and lead to legal challenges for organisations.
Bias and Discrimination Facial recognition
technology has been criticised for perpetuating racial and gender
biases. Studies have shown that certain facial recognition systems
perform poorly when identifying individuals with darker skin tones or
women, leading to potential discrimination. Under GDPR’s fairness
principle, such biases could result in unlawful data processing.
I put most of this up in a much earlier post, with links. You accept that some people have reservations (or stronger concerns) - so forget the context of football and then you can agree to disagree. Nobody is claiming that football is a special case.
And as I said as a general thing I understand (but don’t share the worry) the point being made.
I find it odd that to address that we write to the football club however and not say an MP or existing businesses who use it but there you are.
As you say we can agree to disagree 👍
You said 'it's the football bit I don't get' - I know you are in favour. I would find it odder if CAST, affiliated to the FSA, had written to Morrisons?
Let's face it, this is all about collecting more and more data, for whatever purpose. There are pros and cons of course, but it certainly isn't being developed for the purposes of making the ordinary persons lives better - although a side product is that the perception will be that some things have become "easier".
Whichever side of the debate you sit, the "rules" in this area about what people can and can't do are virtually non-existent, so surely most would agree that that can't be allowed to continue indefinitely?
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?
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.
Comments
Surely this should be one of the predominant reasons for using FRT.
There is no escape from Big Brother, its too late, we're all doomed.
I don't like the blanket response of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is fully subjective, it isnt about having things to hide, its about people's privacy. I might have a prosthetic leg, that isnt something to hide however it may be something I wish to keep private.
I would not consent to my DNA being taken upon entry to the ground and this is in the same ballpark. Its a fingerprint, much more so than a CCTV image and there is precedent for information and data like this to be misused
I can’t agree with you.
I don't like it in Morrisons, Sainsbury's etc and IF they are using facial recognition software as well as CCTV then they should inform people. I don't have the same emotional attachment to supermarkets as I do to what goes on at The Valley though and I wouldn't behave the same at football necessarily as I would in the shops, maybe more swearing in the shops, but you know what I mean. Im happy for those shops to engage with me on their nectar or loyalty schemes and give me offers based on what shit I buy but thats as far as I want our intimacy to go.
I can’t think of a scenario that creates a new concern.
yet to hear a reason not to.
Key principles under GDPR relevant to facial recognition include:
Privacy Implications of Facial Recognition
While facial recognition can offer benefits such as security enhancements and operational efficiency, it also presents considerable privacy risks. Some of the key privacy implications include:
I put most of this up in a much earlier post, with links. You accept that some people have reservations (or stronger concerns) - so forget the context of football and then you can agree to disagree. Nobody is claiming that football is a special case.
Its why I said about having DMA samples taken upon entry to football or anywhere for that matter. Nobody would consent to that
I would find it odder if CAST, affiliated to the FSA, had written to Morrisons?
Whichever side of the debate you sit, the "rules" in this area about what people can and can't do are virtually non-existent, so surely most would agree that that can't be allowed to continue indefinitely?
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?
increased usage.