Would you accept facial recognition for safety and cheaper fares?

[Fleetmaster]

With an eye to fully automated driving, looking decades into the future (but based on what we already accept as normal right now)...

Is anyone at all minded to agree that the potential money savings and performance improvements of handing over the basic but necessary task of ensuring all passengers on a bus or train are entitled to be there and have paid the right fare, be handed over to some sort of facial recognition plus a more general behavioral monitoring AI system.

Can people take that next step? You're all on your own in a bus or train, which feels inherently dodgy, but in reality, you might already be safer because potential problems are being kept off the vehicles, and to a lsseeg

and to a lesser extent, actual problems might be handled more effectively, if not necessarily in all cases, more quickly.

Related to this, how much safer would we all be if for example, AI was being used to examine the many hours of external cctv bus footage to automatically flag up bad driving, either for criminal action or increasingly, intervention from social services.

 

[D365]

Don't see how this would make our fares cheaper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm inclined to say that alongside audio CCTV, facial recognition CCTV should be banned on data protection grounds.

 

[zwk500]

With an eye to fully automated driving, looking decades into the future (but based on what we already accept as normal right now)...

Is anyone at all minded to agree that the potential money savings and performance improvements of handing over the basic but necessary task of ensuring all passengers on a bus or train are entitled to be there and have paid the right fare, be handed over to some sort of facial recognition plus a more general behavioral monitoring AI system.

I don't see how fares would be improved by this over contactless ticketing.

Related to this, how much safer would we all be if for example, AI was being used to examine the many hours of external cctv bus footage to automatically flag up bad driving, either for criminal action or increasingly, intervention from social services.

I would have serious objections to AI analysis of bad driving being used for anything other than reasonable prosecution of motoring offences. I'd have strong objection to AI analysis of CCTV being used for such a purpose at all.

I'm inclined to say that alongside audio CCTV, facial recognition CCTV should be banned on data protection grounds.

Audio CCTV is probably for me in a 'heavily controlled, but can be justified in public spaces at times' category, but facial recognition is definitely in a 'informed and positive consent only' level, with strict data control and licensing.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I suspect it would be more likely that the fares would go up to cover the cost of the systems...?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Audio CCTV is probably for me in a 'heavily controlled, but can be justified in public spaces at times' category, but facial recognition is definitely in a 'informed and positive consent only' level, with strict data control and licensing.

Audio CCTV to protect a specific person, e.g. a bodycam or a bus driving cab, with very clear signage, I can just about accept.

Audio CCTV in public spaces, definitely not. And I think its blanket use on domestic CCTV should be outright banned - e.g. Ring cameras - it should only be possible to get audio for a short period when the doorbell has been pressed. Domestic CCTV has almost no controls - video is often misused, but audio has even more of a potential to be so.

But back to topic I have a massive, massive problem with the idea of making people, even if they choose to leave their mobile phone at home, being as trackable as motor vehicles, and that's what facial recognition does. I would be strongly in favour of a total and outright ban in all CCTV type applications.

 

[zwk500]

Audio CCTV to protect a specific person, e.g. a bodycam or a bus driving cab, with very clear signage, I can just about accept.

Audio CCTV in public spaces, definitely not. And I think its blanket use on domestic CCTV should be outright banned - e.g. Ring cameras - it should only be possible to get audio for a short period when the doorbell has been pressed. Domestic CCTV has almost no controls - video is often misused, but audio has even more of a potential to be so.

Agree that the data management of retail CCTV is woeful. Although a lot of people will have to do the GDPR training for their job, I bet they ignore it completely at Home.

But back to topic I have a massive, massive problem with the idea of making people, even if they choose to leave their mobile phone at home, being as trackable as motor vehicles, and that's what facial recognition does. I would be strongly in favour of a total and outright ban in all CCTV type applications.

Yes. I am totally with you. Facial recognition should be limited to strictly licensed applications where participants have fully informed and voluntary consent to the system, with alternative options offered if they wish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. I am totally with you. Facial recognition should be limited to strictly licensed applications where participants have fully informed and voluntary consent to the system, with alternative options offered if they wish.

Yep. I'm fine with my laptop doing it to recognise me, I'm fine with my passport doing it to fail to recognise me when I insert it into a passport gate (seriously, it never works, ever) but I'm not fine with a shop logging who's been in, or the Police tracking my face around town just because they felt like, not because they suspect me of an offence.

 

[zwk500]

Yep. I'm fine with my laptop doing it to recognise me, I'm fine with my passport doing it to fail to recognise me when I insert it into a passport gate (seriously, it never works, ever)

Funnily I haven't ever had a serious problem, but then I don't travel too much and post-covid have only travelled abroad by train or boat.

but I'm not fine with a shop logging who's been in, or the Police tracking my face around town just because they felt like, not because they suspect me of an offence.

I'm not fine with the police tracking people in public regardless of whether or not the wanted person has done something serious, because it means they're capturing hundreds of images of innocent people to compare against who have no idea they're being monitored and their information is being stored, however short-term, for such a purpose. The uses to which the Chinese government have put the technology are nefarious, and I wouldn't want to give anybody, from a control-freak of a minister to a CCTV operator who thinks they can make some easy money, that level of control over a populace.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Funnily I haven't ever had a serious problem, but then I don't travel too much and post-covid have only travelled abroad by train or boat.

Many people don't but I do, no idea why. It's probably limited in what it can do because it does it originally from a printed photograph which could be distorted slightly. My previous passport worked about 50% of the time, my new one doesn't ever (it does read it OK so the chip isn't faulty, but the biometrics don't identify me).

 

[Fleetmaster]

I was assuming cost savings from reduced staffing and evasion (and possibly even less compensation claims).

Also, AFAIK there's already some facial recognition usage by stores to prevent shoplifting?

 

[Bantamzen]

With an eye to fully automated driving, looking decades into the future (but based on what we already accept as normal right now)...

Is anyone at all minded to agree that the potential money savings and performance improvements of handing over the basic but necessary task of ensuring all passengers on a bus or train are entitled to be there and have paid the right fare, be handed over to some sort of facial recognition plus a more general behavioral monitoring AI system.

Can people take that next step? You're all on your own in a bus or train, which feels inherently dodgy, but in reality, you might already be safer because potential problems are being kept off the vehicles, and to a lsseeg

and to a lesser extent, actual problems might be handled more effectively, if not necessarily in all cases, more quickly.

Related to this, how much safer would we all be if for example, AI was being used to examine the many hours of external cctv bus footage to automatically flag up bad driving, either for criminal action or increasingly, intervention from social services.

Quite honestly this sounds like a precursor to the Chinese social credit system. So that's a big no thank you from me, a no thank you built of neon lights 200 feet high...

 

[W-on-Sea]

Certainly not, that would be a gross invasion of privacy and give far too much power to state bodies with varying levels of accountability for their actions.

 

[Intercity110]

Sure, i don’t see why not (other then privacy and we have the GDPR to protect us with privacy anyways.)

 

[LOL The Irony]

No. The benefit is massively outweighed by the negatives.

 

[richa2002]

Not in a million years.

 

[nw1]

Absolutely not, for the obvious privacy reasons.

 

[Trainbike46]

I agree with others this almost certainly wouldn't reduce fares.

And even if it did, I would oppose its introduction.

Many people don't but I do, no idea why. It's probably limited in what it can do because it does it originally from a printed photograph which could be distorted slightly. My previous passport worked about 50% of the time, my new one doesn't ever (it does read it OK so the chip isn't faulty, but the biometrics don't identify me).

For me it works about half the time. Frankly, I would take it failing to recognise you as a good thing, because it suggests you confused the facial recognition algorithm - meaning you would probably be harder to track using facial recognition.

Audio CCTV in public spaces, definitely not. And I think its blanket use on domestic CCTV should be outright banned - e.g. Ring cameras - it should only be possible to get audio for a short period when the doorbell has been pressed. Domestic CCTV has almost no controls - video is often misused, but audio has even more of a potential to be so.

Related to this, I really don't get why anyone would ever want a ring doorbel (or domestic CCTV in general), from reports the security is rather bad, and the main person you'd be recording is yourself.
I would support much stronger limits on domestic CCTV, such as a complete ban on domestic CCTV that can see into anyone else's garden or even house, as well as restriction on audio CCTV, as well as limitations on internet connected domestic CCTV (as the internet side of things is often terribly unsecure)

 

[GusB]

If the Stasi were still around, they'd be rubbing their hands with glee. We've already got far too much CCTV as it is; I used to joke that the only bit of my journey from my house into town that wasn't monitored was the walk from my house to the bus stop but, in the age of Ring doorbells, this is no longer the case. A world where an AI system monitors everything and applies algorithms is not one I wish to be part of.

No doubt someone will be along shortly to trot out the usual "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" rubbish.

Such systems will cut jobs costs, but all that means is that the companies that employ them will make bigger profits; the savings will not be passed on to the consumer!

 

[Irascible]

Not a chance.

And things are only legal until there's a law against them, the more laws passed, the more money members of the legal profession make. Equally the less laws there are, the less criminal behaviour there is & the better the figures look, which I'm always surprised governments haven't cottoned onto...

 

[nw1]

If the Stasi were still around, they'd be rubbing their hands with glee. We've already got far too much CCTV as it is; I used to joke that the only bit of my journey from my house into town that wasn't monitored was the walk from my house to the bus stop but, in the age of Ring doorbells, this is no longer the case. A world where an AI system monitors everything and applies algorithms is not one I wish to be part of.

Indeed, an urgent investigation into the ethics of AI in general is needed before it gets too late.

 

[YorksLad12]

I refer my learned colleagues to the US TV series Person of Interest, which I am currently rewatching on Amazon Prime. We are *way* too late to be worried about CCTV, facial recognition, data grabs, etc.

 

[bussnapperwm]

I refer my learned colleagues to the US TV series Person of Interest, which I am currently rewatching on Amazon Prime. We are *way* too late to be worried about CCTV, facial recognition, data grabs, etc.

It's a very good object lesson on the topic in hand too

 

[Irascible]

I refer my learned colleagues to the US TV series Person of Interest, which I am currently rewatching on Amazon Prime. We are *way* too late to be worried about CCTV, facial recognition, data grabs, etc.

It's never too late to be worried about what data is used for, and to actively try and control effects of um, poor management. We're a bit past trying not to be profiled & more into "how do we mess up their profiling" though - outside of civil rights areas which have obviously more direct points of attack.

 

[Sm5]

I'm inclined to say that alongside audio CCTV, facial recognition CCTV should be banned on data protection grounds.

This country is obsessed with control and monitoring, i’m not sure youve got much hope on this.

Clearview AI | Facial Recognition

Clearview AI is a revolutionary, all-in-one, facial recognition platform designed to support federal, state, and local law enforcement in their shared mission to help keep communities safe.

www.clearview.ai