'Facial Recognition Tech Mistook Me For Wanted Man' (bbc.co.uk) 112
Bruce66423 shares a report from the BBC: A man who is bringing a High Court challenge against the Metropolitan Police after live facial recognition technology wrongly identified him as a suspect has described it as "stop and search on steroids." Shaun Thompson, 39, was stopped by police in February last year outside London Bridge Tube station. Privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch said the judicial review, due to be heard in January, was the first legal case of its kind against the "intrusive technology." The Met, which announced last week that it would double its live facial recognition technology (LFR) deployments, said it was removing hundreds of dangerous offenders and remained confident its use is lawful. LFR maps a person's unique facial features, and matches them against faces on watch-lists. [...]
Mr Thompson said his experience of being stopped had been "intimidating" and "aggressive." "Every time I come past London Bridge, I think about that moment. Every single time." He described how he had been returning home from a shift in Croydon, south London, with the community group Street Fathers, which aims to protect young people from knife crime. As he passed a white van, he said police approached him and told him he was a wanted man. "When I asked what I was wanted for, they said, 'that's what we're here to find out'." He said officers asked him for his fingerprints, but he refused, and he was let go only after about 30 minutes, after showing them a photo of his passport.
Mr Thompson says he is bringing the legal challenge because he is worried about the impact LFR could have on others, particularly if young people are misidentified. "I want structural change. This is not the way forward. This is like living in Minority Report," he said, referring to the science fiction film where technology is used to predict crimes before they're committed. "This is not the life I know. It's stop and search on steroids. "I can only imagine the kind of damage it could do to other people if it's making mistakes with me, someone who's doing work with the community." Bruce66423 comments: "I suspect a payout of 10,000 pounds for each false match that is acted on would probably encourage more careful use, perhaps with a second payout of 100,000 pounds if the same person is victimized again."
Mr Thompson said his experience of being stopped had been "intimidating" and "aggressive." "Every time I come past London Bridge, I think about that moment. Every single time." He described how he had been returning home from a shift in Croydon, south London, with the community group Street Fathers, which aims to protect young people from knife crime. As he passed a white van, he said police approached him and told him he was a wanted man. "When I asked what I was wanted for, they said, 'that's what we're here to find out'." He said officers asked him for his fingerprints, but he refused, and he was let go only after about 30 minutes, after showing them a photo of his passport.
Mr Thompson says he is bringing the legal challenge because he is worried about the impact LFR could have on others, particularly if young people are misidentified. "I want structural change. This is not the way forward. This is like living in Minority Report," he said, referring to the science fiction film where technology is used to predict crimes before they're committed. "This is not the life I know. It's stop and search on steroids. "I can only imagine the kind of damage it could do to other people if it's making mistakes with me, someone who's doing work with the community." Bruce66423 comments: "I suspect a payout of 10,000 pounds for each false match that is acted on would probably encourage more careful use, perhaps with a second payout of 100,000 pounds if the same person is victimized again."
Oh. Who could possibly have predicted. (Score:3)
Imagine if you could just look at the way this is set up and see that the police both have an incentive and a level of indemnity that allows them to harass people and believe they're doing the right thing in the process, best case.
Body cameras (Score:2)
Do create real accountability. But yes, it's far too easy for thuggish police officers to push the limits of their power.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yah, I don't disagree... but there's that systemic resistance where poor folks and minorities don't have the resources to engage with legal services to make it matter. In a country or a local service where these things are proactively monitored there's a real chance to modify officer behavior in advance of unnecessary escalations and all that, but that requires the commitment to actually review the footage and make changes (or charge officers) based on it.
Anecdotally it seems like people need someone who
Re: (Score:2)
Im not scared, and my point isnt discredited.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is trying to undermine the point that this is something that minorities experience.
I was stopped two weeks ago... (Score:5, Informative)
If it is "protect and serve", maybe police would start by saying why they are talking to me, first thing, instead of: "You got any weapons"? I never found out why, as my bus came, and he let me get on.
Maybe they could even politely introduce themselves before asking my name.
Re: (Score:3)
Might they overreach? Sure. But use your rights or lose your rights.
Re: (Score:3)
In the USA at least, you dont have to talk to them, or cooperate.4th amendment protects you against unlawful searches. 5th allows you to not talk to a cop if under suspicion. If its "cordial" you can tell them you dont want to talk. Might they overreach? Sure. But use your rights or lose your rights.
There is so much overreach entire sections of the constitution are being deleted and people are losing due process. Ideally the second amendment is supposed to protect you but I can guess how the encounter would go with just him and a pistol. Simply admitting you carry has caused them to panic attack at the drop of an acorn or less.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
4th amendment protects you against unlawful searches.
Resisting arrest are you, son? On the ground ! Not fast enough, now you're dead. And qualified immunity means that it's not illegal for the officer to execute you while shouting that exact sequence of words.
The 4th and 5th amendments only protect you after the fact in court, and might stop you getting imprisoned on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. They don't do shit to prevent police harassment and general malfeasance.
Might they overreach?
They
using my privilege to resist (Score:2)
I'm white so I will probably just get pepper spray or taser at the most extreme.
But if I had a darker skin tone in the wrong neighborhood with the wrong cop, my life would really be on the line. Illegal choke hold or shot are a pig's favorite.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't satisfy their curiosity though, it can trigger an arrest, after which, sure you can assert those rights, but the rest of your day if not your life is ruined at that point. You also need to be able to afford a lawyer to litigate those rights, assuming you survive the encounter, of course.
UK recommendations (Score:5, Informative)
1) Ask whether their body camera is working; it should be showing a blinking light
2) Ask: is this a stop search - the legal term that gives them the right to ask questions
3) If they affirm it is a stop search, ask them the basis for the stop. Three main excuses:
a) it's a airport - unlimited powers
b) there's a section 60 order in place; issued by a senior police officer, it allows anyone to be stop searched. Issued in a specific local area usually after a serious incident
c) otherwise there must be reasonable suspicion; the statement 'we're stopping everyone' will not do!
4) Look for other people to become witnesses.
5) After the event ask for a copy of the form that should have been generated.
If enough people resist to the maximum extent of the law, it forces them to behave better in the long term, though it can be problematic in the short term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Ask whether their body camera is working; it should be showing a blinking light
2) Ask: is this a stop search - the legal term that gives them the right to ask questions
3) If they affirm it is a stop search, ask them the basis for the stop. Three main excuses:
a) it's a airport - unlimited powers
b) there's a section 60 order in place; issued by a senior police officer, it allows anyone to be stop searched. Issued in a specific local area usually after a serious incident
c) otherwise there must be reasonable suspicion; the statement 'we're stopping everyone' will not do!
4) Look for other people to become witnesses.
5) After the event ask for a copy of the form that should have been generated.
If enough people resist to the maximum extent of the law, it forces them to behave better in the long term, though it can be problematic in the short term.
If enough people resist, they'll change the laws to make resistance a crime.
The US is already in a police state as enough Americans have accepted concentration camps, illegal detention, illegal deportation, deployment of the national guard against protesters, et al. Nor the arrest warrants for political opponents in Texas. Hell, you've got enough people defending this shit.
It's a bit late for civil resistance as they'll just demonise you as agitators on television (which they control, having cancelled
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I was stopped two weeks ago... (Score:2)
Or maybe they meant "London Bridge tube station" (which is what the summary said) which is a tube station that very much still exists.
Potentially faulty reasoning (Score:3)
"I suspect a payout of 10,000 pounds for each false match that is acted on would probably encourage more careful use, perhaps with a second payout of 100,000 pounds if the same person is victimized again."
Why would an individual police officer give a shit about how much the taxpayers have to spent to fix his mistakes? The million dollar injury and death lawsuits all over America hasn't altered standard practice or reformed police departments here, is there something special about policing in the UK that it would work there?
Re: (Score:3)
His boss will be unhappy (Score:2)
If a force is required to pay out compensation, it gets less toys. The chiefs will not like that, so they will transmit their irritation all the way down to the plod on the street via the plod's boss. So yes, it would be a useful incentive for them to get it right.
Guilty until proven innocent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Guilty until proven innocent (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so while police messed up here, I don't think this incident supports the notion that we are "guilty until proven innocent."
The man was released when he showed his ID, after all. He was not charged with anything. Police only held him as long as they did because he was uncooperative.
Sure, mistakes happen. But that doesn't prove that justice has gone down the toilet.
People resembling a suspect, ALWAYS been mistakes (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is stopped and interview merely because of a facial recognition, but also because the officer on the scene, face to face with the person, agrees that this person looks like the suspect and their ID needs to be checked. The computer is just providing data to a human who then uses their judgement.
No one is stopped because of facial recognition? (Score:3)
Really? Are you sure? If there isn't a strong incentive against the cops doing this, they will...
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Are you sure? If there isn't a strong incentive against the cops doing this, they will...
They will what? Ask a person who resembles a description to show ID?
Re: (Score:3)
People resembling a suspect have been stopped and interviewed
When before did police stop people by saying "you're under suspicion of something but we have no idea what now we will search you". Come off it, this is bullshit and you know it.
No one is stopped and interview merely because of a facial recognition, but also because the officer on the scene, face to face with the person, agrees that this person looks like the suspect and their ID needs to be checked.
Citation-fucking-needed. This is the MET we are
Re:People resembling a suspect, ALWAYS been mistak (Score:4, Insightful)
People resembling a suspect have been stopped and interviewed
When before did police stop people by saying "you're under suspicion of something but we have no idea what now we will search you". Come off it, this is bullshit and you know it.
WTF are you talking about? What is the basis of the facial recognition match?
No one is stopped and interview merely because of a facial recognition, but also because the officer on the scene, face to face with the person, agrees that this person looks like the suspect and their ID needs to be checked.
Citation-fucking-needed. This is the MET we are talking about here.
It's f'ing training. The officer has discretion. It's no different than told someone that matches a suspect description is located somewhere and once on scene the officer sees they obviously do not match. That they are a false positive. False positives that cause an officer to go somewhere to make contact with a person is nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about? What is the basis of the facial recognition match?
RTFS, m8.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about? What is the basis of the facial recognition match?
RTFS, m8.
I had, and it does not answer your WTF claim of "you're under suspicion of something but we have no idea what now we will search you". The person in question admits he was thought to be a particular suspect. That's wanted for something specific, if the correct person.
Good lord, that's your basis for your WTF claim. It's the officer sarcastically saying being wanted is dependent on you actually being the suspect. Which was promptly cleared up when the guy actually showed ID and was released.
Where is it cl
Re: (Score:2)
It's the officer sarcastically saying
Hey just joking bro. It's a joke bro. Sure I can make your life miserable, lock you up for a few days and probably get away with beating you up, and sure we have a reputation of doing this extra to black people like you but it's a joke, bro, lighten up!
Fucking hell the police bootlickers are swarming this thread.
If you detain someone and demand ID (something which we are not required to carry) that's not the time to be sarcastic towards people who have every reason to
Re: (Score:2)
It's the officer sarcastically saying
Hey just joking bro. It's a joke bro. Sure I can make your life miserable, lock you up for a few days and probably get away with beating you up, and sure we have a reputation of doing this extra to black people like you but it's a joke, bro, lighten up!
Again, total BS. None of that happened. You are fabricating a straw man.
Fucking hell the police bootlickers are swarming this thread.
Now ad hominem fallacy since your lack any coherent argument.
If you detain someone and demand ID (something which we are not required to carry) ...
Police are absolutely within their rights to ask for identification. If you don't have any on you then they will accompany you to wherever your ID is.
that's not the time to be sarcastic towards people who have every reason to be both suspicious and fearful of you.
If you want to argue he was being an a-hole, sure. I'm only challenging the sort of nonsense you display above.
Again, there is nothing really new here. People resembling a suspend have been stopped, questions, and asked for ID
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one that claimed the policeman was being sarcastic to the person he just detained. Now you say it never happened. Your could be employed by the met as a spokesman with that attitude
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one that claimed the policeman was being sarcastic to the person he just detained. Now you say it never happened. Your could be employed by the met as a spokesman with that attitude
You are such a dipshit, what I claimed never happened was your BS "make your life miserable, lock you up for a few days and probably get away with beating you up, and sure we have a reputation of doing this extra to black people like you but it's a joke".
A dude resembled a suspect according the facial recognition, a cop shows up in person, agrees there is a resemblence, asks for ID, the person refuses, the cop does not let him go. The guy then offers identification. The cop lets him go.
Re: (Score:2)
You think the police have never done that shit tob people? and aren't institutionally racist?
K, bruv.
What actually happened is someone, a black guy which is hardly irrelevant given the generally attitude of the MET, was stopped and when he asked why the policeman said he was going to find out. If the police stop you and can't give a reason why, that's flat out harassment.
If they're was a reason maybe they should have, I don't know, told the guy why they had stopped him instead of a vague threat about findi
Re: (Score:2)
You think the police have never done that shit tob people? and aren't institutionally racist?
The fact remains you made such false accusation in this case.
If the police stop you and can't give a reason why, that's flat out harassment.
The facial recognition's match for a suspect constitutes a reasonable belief that warrants sending out an officer to make contact. When that officer finds that individual and sees a resembles to the suspect that establishes a reasonable belief that warrants asking for identification. Note that when presented with identification that offer is satisfied and leaves, as a reasonable belief no longer exists. For the time period that identification was
Re: (Score:2)
The fact remains you made such false accusation in this case.
Don't make shit up. I wasn't accusing the police of literally doing all those things to this one person in this particular case. Those are all things the police have done and well you know it, specially to black people.
The facial recognition's match for a suspect constitutes a reasonable belief that warrants sending out an officer to make contact.
And the police offer can bloody tell the suspect what the reasonable belief is rather than in your wo
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't accusing the police of literally doing all those things to this one person in this particular case.
You were attempting to argue false straw men rather than the incident that actually occurred. Not to mention trying to manufacture a negative perception of the officer involved with a guilt by association fallacy.
Those are all things the police have done and well you know it ...
Again, guilt by association fallacy. Nothing to do with what originally occurred, just you attempt to imply such things.
The facial recognition's match for a suspect constitutes a reasonable belief that warrants sending out an officer to make contact.
And the police offer can bloody tell the suspect what the reasonable belief is rather than in your words being "sarcastic" at him which sounds very much like a threat to stitch him up.
If you wish to argue the officer had a poor demeanor, is probably an a-hole, no problem. But that does no change the reasonable belief at facial recognition time, the and again at
Re: (Score:2)
You should stop trying to quote the names of logical fallacies, you clearly don't know what they mean.
It sure sounds like a stitch up, when you are detained and the officer then tells you they are trying to find a reason why they detained you. Stopping people and threatening them with finding a reason isn't part of the job of the police. They can stop people with reasonable suspicion, they can't stop people to fish for suspicion and that's what the officer said he was doing.
What to appear to be arriving is
Re: (Score:2)
You should stop trying to quote the names of logical fallacies, you clearly don't know what they mean.
Let's put that to a test. Which usage do you have a problem with?
It sure sounds like a stitch up, when you are detained and the officer then tells you they are trying to find a reason why they detained you.
Not what happened. That's your false straw man. The person in this case was detained because they resembled a suspect and the officer wanted to see identification. When identification was eventually presented the officer left.
Your "stitch up" notion is a misrepresentation of a bad and inappropriate joke.
Stopping people and threatening them with finding a reason isn't part of the job of the police.
Again, not what happened. That's your straw man misrepresentation. There was no threat unless the unidentified person was in fact the suspe
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put that to a test. Which usage do you have a problem with?
Literally all of them. If I said "you're a fascist therefore your arguments are wrong" that's ad-homenim. If I say "your arguments are wrong, you fascist" that's just an insult. And pointing out the many, many reasons people, especially black people, have to be suspicious of the police isn't a "straw man".
I would say you selectively cutting awkward bits out of the interaction hat make the police look bad is much closer to a straw man.
Not what
Re: (Score:2)
Name something I cut out that actually happened in this incident?
The policeman opened not by saying what the reasonable suspicion was but saying he'd find a reason. Sometimes you admit to that, sometimes you appear to forget that happened.
By courtesy or by law? We know the officer lacked courtesy. However with respect to law a google search suggests they are only required to explain a search, not a request for identification, in the UK.
Google harder.
A policeman can request ID, you can refuse and they can't
Re: (Score:2)
Name something I cut out that actually happened in this incident?
The policeman opened not by saying what the reasonable suspicion was but saying he'd find a reason.
You falsely misrepresent a bad joke. He was not saying he would find a reason, he was saying there would be a reason if the person is in fact the wanted suspect they were looking for. When identification was offered the officer did not try to find or manufacture anything, he left. Not the wanted suspect, no more suspicion.
Again, can you name anything that actually happened, not what you erroneous imagine and can offer no evidence of. Where is the evidence of trying to "stitch up" this person once he prov
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously need to learn reading comprehension.
You falsely misrepresent a bad joke.
Nope, you're misrepresnting me.
He was not saying he would find a reason, he was saying there would be a reason if the person is in fact the wanted suspect they were looking for.
You can't detain someone without telling them why. This so-called "joke" was illegal behaviour. Stop defending it.
That is something quite different than your false narrative of looking to "stitch up" someone.
Don't lie about what I said. I said it
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously need to learn reading comprehension.
OMG the psychological projection you display is truly amazing.
You can't detain someone without telling them why.
By his own words, he indicates he was told: "As he passed a white van, he said police approached him and told him he was a wanted man."
This so-called "joke" was illegal behaviour.
What evidence do you have they acted in the manner you falsely claim? There is no attempt to "find" something, they want identification. When they see identifications that shows he is not the wanted suspect they leave. He is of no interest to them if he is not the wanted suspect. You keep claiming they were out t
Re: (Score:2)
By his own words, he indicates he was told: "As he passed a white van, he said police approached him and told him he was a wanted man."
There is no crime of being a "wanted man". And he wasn't a wanted man. He was suspected of being someone wanted for a specific crime. These are not the same, there is a legal difference and the police are supposed to follow the law.
""When I asked what I was wanted for, they said, 'that's what we're here to find out'."
It's in TFA. Maybe read it.
What evidence do you have they
Re: (Score:2)
By his own words, he indicates he was told: "As he passed a white van, he said police approached him and told him he was a wanted man."
There is no crime of being a "wanted man".
Being a suspect of a crime is still a valid reason for stopping and asking for ID. And it constitutes being informed of why one is being required to show ID.
And he wasn't a wanted man. He was suspected of being someone wanted for a specific crime.
That's one of the definitions of the casual phrase "wanted man".
That you for admitting he was informed of why he was stopped and required to show ID.
These are not the same, there is a legal difference and the police are supposed to follow the law.
You are mistaken here. One of the definitions in the UK is "Someone suspected of having committed a crime."
""When I asked what I was wanted for, they said, 'that's what we're here to find out'."
He is only wanted if he is indeed the suspect. If he is not the suspect he is not wanted. Detail
Re: (Score:2)
Being a suspect of a crime is still a valid reason for stopping and asking for ID. And it constitutes being informed of why one is being required to show ID.
Being suspected of a crime is valid. Not being told what you are suspected of is not. They didn't say he was suspected of some crime, they said they'd find out what crime he was suspected of.
That's one of the definitions of the casual phrase "wanted man".
No, you are intentionally I feel trying to hop between legal and lay definitions. Being "wanted" isn
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't say he was suspected of some crime, ...
Yes they did. "he said police approached him and told him he was a wanted man"
General explanations are lawful.
... they said they'd find out what crime he was suspected of.
No, they did not. "that's what we're here to find out" is referring to whether he is or is not the "wanted man".
Being "wanted" isn't a crime.
Being "wanted" means the police are actively searching for you, with cause.
Hence things being elevated to the point where they can demand to see identification.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. A little bit of reading between the lines tells me that the alert didn't include any information about what the suspect was accused of, just that he was wanted. In fact, the only thing I can infer from the description of the incident is that he wasn't described as being "armed and dangerous," or whatever the Britis
Re: Guilty until proven innocent (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget having multiple cops shouting "don't move" , "show me your hands", and "get down" all at the same time and repeatedly and no matter what you do then 2 out of 3 of them being pissed off that you're not doing what they told you and thus label you non-compliant and deserving of a beat down or shooting.
Re: (Score:2)
And before anyone says "that doesn't happen" here's a particularly egregious one from 2016 where they had a guy, Daniel Shaver, in AZ and made him crawl on the floor in a hotel hallway and still shot and killed him:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
(note i think some police shoots are "unfortunate, but understandable in context" , but that the general US cop approach of yelling and screaming and using force and pulling their guns and yelling at people to comply instead of de-escalating things and being chi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, tragedies happen, and your story is clearly a tragedy. But it was news because this kind of tragedy is rare, not common. If it were common, it wouldn't be news.
The man in TFA wasn't behaving innocently. That story does not support the claim that police used unnecessary force.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, really? You don't think that shooting the suspect five times with a semi-automatic rifle at close range was unnecessary force?
Re: (Score:2)
My quote referred to TFA, as in the article at the top of this Slashdot thread, where the UK guy was stopped due to facial recognition. I wasn't referring to your story about the guy in the hotel. Yes, it's likely in your story, that police used unnecessary force, but it's not 100% clear, because he did make a motion that made them think he was reaching for a weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude... the man instinctively pulled his pants up since they were falling down as he was walking backwards on his knees with his hands up.
The cops were behind cover (or at least concealment if you want to be precise) and he was facing away from them. even if he DID pull a gun out of his pants he'd have to, from a kneeling position, swivel around, acquire a target and shoot.
So these guys were super amped up and trigger happy and they overreacted.
The failures started long before this. "Some dude with a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree. I said that. I said TFA--the article about facial rec--didn't support the claim about unnecessary force.
Re: (Score:2)
ah. sorry. too many FAs ...
Re: (Score:2)
De-escalation is a thing. I don't anticipate ever getting a police knee in my back or a boot in my mouth, but I won't ever react to police in a way that will make them want to do those things.
This man had no important reason to resist being fingerprinted. That was not an unreasonable request.
The facial recognition thing is kind of beside the point here. Police have published artist sketches for decades, which have often led to incorrect identification. When the identification is incorrect, just put that fin
Re: Guilty until proven innocent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have had numerous interactions with police. All have gone perfectly fine, because of how I talk with them. I've even had officers not write me a ticket because I was respectful and cooperative. I'm not naive, I've been there, done that.
I also work with inner city boys, teaching them trade skills to help them get out of the 'hood. I see how they are taught to interact with police: with belligerence and attitude. It does them no favors.
Re: Guilty until proven innocent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So now you're suggesting that police are only reasonable with *white* people. That seems very racist to me. Are you prepared to back that up?
As we often say around here, correlation is not causation. It might be that one race or another is more *correlated* with prison populations or arrests etc. But that does not lead to a finding of *causation*.
There's a thing that goes around in minority circles: "the talk" that parents have with their young boys, explaining how to behave when they encounter a police off
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, police mistakes happen. They happen to white people too. But that's a lot different from the headline of this thread, claiming "guilty until proven innocent." Your rationalization assumes that the mistakes should dictate the rule, and that's not a valid conclusion.
Some people think that income taxes are too much of a burden, or that wearing a seat belt in a car is too much of a burden. Sorry folks, those are the laws we live under, burden or not. If the burden is too great, sue and vote. Just because
Re: Guilty until proven innocent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK you are not obliged to carry ID, and generally not obliged to produce it on demand unless the police have a good reason for it.
Black people are particularly vulnerable to this technology because it seems to have a much higher rate of false positives with darker skin. Similarly to how they already get stopped and searched more, it's just another way that they are not as free to go about their business without proving they aren't a criminal as the rest of us are.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you are not legally obliged to do a thing, doesn't make refraining from producing ID, a good or effective strategy. This guy brought the suspicion on himself.
Re: (Score:2)
The faulty facial recognition and lazy cops brought it upon him.
Re: (Score:2)
And what does that change? It's no different than somebody being identified through a published artist sketch. How does resisting officer requests, help anything or anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you have an actual point to make? Generally, when someone responds to a comment by attacking the commenter, it means they don't have anything insightful to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Got it, so you don't have a point, all you can do is attack the person you disagree with. Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your responses certainly aren't very creative. I think you mentioned that already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As it happens, I oppose Trump and never voted for him. My idea of a politician with character, is Liz Cheney. She fought for principles she believed in, and paid the political price. I fully believe Trump ought to be impeached and convicted of treason. So maybe you don't know me as well as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Flawed strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
This man refused to provide fingerprints. What was the point of that? Did he think he would gain the trust of the police by being uncooperative? If he had let them take his fingerprints, he would have probably been released sooner. As soon as he demonstrated his real identity, they let him go. The "stop and frisk on steroids" was brought on by his own actions.
If you have a beef with facial recognition, being uncooperative when police pick you up, won't do you any favors. A better strategy would be to fully
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This man refused to provide fingerprints. What was the point of that? Did he think he would gain the trust of the police by being uncooperative?
It's possible this foolish man thought he was in the United States and protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Little did he know he's subject to Colonial rule. Ironic that this happens during a time when former colonies are celebrating Emancipation Day and Independence Day.
Re: (Score:2)
While the UK doesn't have a "Fourth Amendment," it does have a "Human Rights Act of 1998" and a "Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984" which give Britains the same basic protections as the US Fourth Amendment.
Yes, the current administration is trying to erode freedoms, but so far has failed, such as his attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship. Democracy has to be protected, to be sure. But it's not over in the US just yet, despite taking a beating.
Re: Flawed strategy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The next time I get stopped, I will hand over my ID, breathe into a tube, or provide fingerprints, if asked. I'll even open the trunk of my car. Disrobe? No, that's a bit of a stretch, but I don't really think that's a possibility.
The principle here is not that I'm defending every police tactic. The principle is that you have to fight strategically. If you feel your rights have been violated, the time to fight that isn't when the police officer is in the act of violating your rights. That officer likely has
Re: (Score:2)
> This man refused to provide fingerprints. What was the point of that?
Because the law allows him to do that. Much like the law has clearly written that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that you are eligible for compensation when you are profiled incorrectly by the police.
Perhaps you'd like to live in China or North Korea where you can be randomly apprehended and harassed by the police just "because you look a bit sus".
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you'd like to live in China or North Korea where you can be randomly apprehended and harassed by the police just "because you look a bit sus".
Versus the United States, where a US citizen born in the US can be deported to country they've never been to, where they don't speak the language, just because they look like an illegal immigrant?!
I don't like communism or socialism, but I can't deny that the Western world is having a Soviet Moment, with Britain and the US leading the way in violating ci
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it wise or effective.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard that applies to conviction in court, not to a police arrest. The standard in that scenario is that the officer must have "probable cause" which is a much lower standard, and is subjective.
There are also many laws in the US and other Western nations, that say you are required to obey the lawful instructions of a police officer.
We are nowhere near the human rights abuses of China or North Korea.
Re: (Score:3)
This man refused to provide fingerprints.
Which is he right. This is just another example of the police, and especially the MET being shitweasel fascists.
The "stop and frisk on steroids" was brought on by his own actions.
This is industrial grade victim blaming here. Do you actually work for the MET because this could have been taken right from they playbook.
The police are not meant to be dogs. They have human agency. Th fault is theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you have the right to do a thing, doesn't make the thing a wise or effective strategy.
If your goal is to avoid 30 minutes of police detention, you might want to give up those fingerprints. If you are willing to exercise your right and face a longer process before you are released, that's your call. But it's not a sign of a brutal police tactic. They had probable cause, which is legal justification for an arrest. As soon as they saw ID, they let him go, as they should. He could have shortened hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and when he did, they let him go.
Re: (Score:3)
Why, exactly, should he have to provide fingerprints?
The sheer level of bootlicking that goes on here is extremely depressing. The police work for us, we don't work for them. If the police have a sufficient level of certainty, they should perform an arrest, if they don't they should restrict themselves to questions and be prepared to leave people alone.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
If you are trying to make systemic changes, then refusing to supply fingerprints is not an effective strategy, and only prolongs your detention. A better strategy is to comply, and then sue.
If you are trying to de-escalate and minimize any unnecessary time being detained, then the best strategy is to comply and move on.
I don't personally care one bit, if police have my fingerprints. As far as I'm concerned, they can have them just for asking, even without a re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to being *convicted of a crime in court*. It does *not* refer to the standard for arrest, which requires only *probable cause.* Probable cause requires only "reasonable grounds" and is a judgment that a police officer is entitled to make, within legal boundaries. This has always been the case in the US and in every Western democracy.
The law generally requires people to obey lawful commands given by a police officer. That's one good reason to say or give things to the po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if those are the choices, I must be an idiot then.
The constitutional standard for arrest, is that the police officer must have "probable cause." That standard is subjective and is at the discretion of the police offer and department. Now, to hold you in detention more than 48 hours (the exact length can vary from state to state), the officer must charge you with a crime. After that, a judge will decide whether you will continue to be held in jail pending trial.
During all that pretrial time period, you
AI appears to be racist (Score:2)