What are you on about? Arresting innocent people with face scanning is absolutely relevant - critical to this.
Locking you up in a cage for days when you did nothing wrong, dragging you into court where you need to defend your life is pretty much almost the worst thing a modern western state can do to you.
No it is not so much for these particular cameras – the people spotted would have been arrested if seen before.
There are two types of cameras – the Flock type of which there are many more in the UK which record all the time and spot people committing a crime where the video is kept and these which do not retain video but are used in real time by police to see if there is anyone who they already have put on a list to be arrested.
There is a case of a flase positive - detained for 30 minutes
Honestly I find the correlations that LFR has worked in other places very weak.
For example the falling of the crime figures could be just because there where more officers around attending the camera's. Or actually that just there being a camera already has a deterring effect, I assume the perpetrators didn't know it was LFR.
I also wonder if the resources spend in a traditional way would have been more effective. I think 3 month trail to make 103 arrests seems a bit low, but I am not familiar with the normal "arrest rate" in that area.
Where's our buddy Garrett Langley or even YC's Garry Tan to come to the defense of the privatized surveillance state?
Pretty much all I ever read about these systems is heinous false positives. I've currently set up automation to pull the local data that includes police activity. One of the towns over from me has, at least, 6 Flock cameras (probably more) for a locale of less than 2000 people. I've not once seen anything related to ALPR or any camera system providing any influence on assisting a crime. You'd think Mr. Langley would be begging police chiefs around the US to put in a positive spin to public information around these digital watchers.
But the morons buying these systems are also the morons taking state tax dollars to buy SWAT vehicles for 100s of thousands of dollars because they want to cosplay GI Joe. Yet... You want a park? Or something that's actually useful in your local community? Fund raise it yourself is the response.
I’m very against this type of pervasive surveillance, but that number seems implausible. The police may have only loaded a small group of suspects into the system, only targeted specific individuals, or some other reason we’re not aware of. The police protecting some criminals wouldn’t be a departure from standard practice in the UK.
That was my first thought. They scanned roughly 1% of the UK’s population. No way they didn’t identify any wanted criminals unless the set of wanted criminals scanned for was only a tiny fraction of the overall list.
"Scanned" faces in this instance isn't unique people.
500,000 individual checks could have been for the same person. While that is extremely unlikely, it's also unlikely they scanned 500,000 unique people.
Security theater is out of control. I just returned from traveling abroad to some major cities in Europe and getting back to NYC, it's the only city I've been in that let's the cops run wild and fly helicopters low over the city. Not so the cops can do any actual work but so they can take a 2 minute short cut to their private helicopter base instead of flying over the water. No I have ever met enjoys the sudden loud noise from helicopters flying just above their head in the middle of the day/night. There are campaigns against it[0], and people despise cops. It would be such an easy win to gain some better relations with the communities and yet the cops keep on doing it.
The cops keeps doing it and the rich join in on holidays to take a shortcut to JFK from downtown Manhattan. The city were 9/11 was apparently a big deal wants to you feel like you're in a war zone all the time for shortcuts and a few $ savings on helicopter fuel.
This to me is the ultimate security theater environment, where the state is constantly pressing a false sense of FUD.
You’re conflating private helicopter rides (which are annoying and frequent) with police ones, which are generally pretty necessary. I’ve only seen them out in my neighborhood after serious crimes where a suspect hasn’t been caught.
Businesses don’t have ears and brains. I’m not sure wtf your point is, mine sure as heck wasn’t some left field calculation about economics of crashing planes and helicopters. You would be fine if they hovered a helicopter above your house 24/7 for security theater?
A lot of those are going to be the same people day in and day out, the article says 500k faces, not people. You also have to filter out those people where the cameras aren't getting an image good enough to scan.
The article doesn't say, and I haven't seen the cameras, but it's not like your getting every single person parsing through those stations.
BTP say [0] that "the images and biometric data of those who don’t cause an alert are automatically and immediately deleted." - if that's true, they shouldn't be able to tell that it's the same faces being scanned multiple times so it has to be 500k total scans rather than, say, 500k unique faces across 2 million scans
that’s not deleting the data then. making people play Only Connect to parse out weasel phrases is akin to lying by omission. they say the same thing at US airports which is why I still opt out of the face scan at security. of course they keep hashes of the image and its features otherwise what’s the point
The sentence says "the [...] data [...] are automatically and immediately deleted". It does not say "some of the data are automatically deleted". It would be a staight lie to delete some, but not all, of the data and then issue the statement that "the data are deleted". This is not an ambiguous case or weasel-wording: it is an unambiguous falsehood.
If you have two coins and you spend one, you cannot truthfully say "I spent the coins". The definite article "the" means all of something you have in this usage, not a single member of a class of something you have. It would be true to say "I spent a coin" or "I spent some of the coins".
The sentence says "...the images and biometric data...are automatically and immediately deleted". It doesn't say that the information they learned by using the images and biometric data that they collected, such as your name, location, the timestamp etc is being deleted. Who you are and where you were at what time isn't an image and isn't your biometric data.
If the name/address is already in the “already seen” list, wouldn’t that be enough to determine the face had already been seen? Or are you saying the name/address should be considered biometric data?
If we're going to be precise, the word "data" is plural and its singular is "datum". But treating it as a substance noun does not change the argument I made in any way - "I gave away the water" does not mean "I gave away some of the water (and kept some for myself)".
They're being very specific about images and biometric data, and they're weaseling those words for a reason. If they deleted all data about such scans, they'd say that.
To do the lookup they're still hitting a database somewhere to know you aren't a concern, which is prime time to log that you were seen, when, and where. Then your "images and biometric data" can be "immediately deleted" since they've gotten anything else they want now.
Digging in it cameras were deployed 21 times for about 4 hours each time ... matching against a watchlist of around 400 faces.
Sounds like it was intended to achieve the outcome it achieved - a near zero false positive rate. If I were a betting person, I would wager the threshold for a match was set comically high.
Perhaps not many criminals use train stations during the day, for example, people probably deliver drugs by bike or car so they don't walk around a busy place stinking of weed.
How many known criminals have biometrics of them in the first place?
Of the criminals that do have identifiable biometrics, do they operate in that area?
We also don't know the false negative rate. Perhaps it's very high in order to keep the false positive rate as low as possible.
These are things pulled out of thin air that could easily explain why 500,000 face scans (not people) provided no arrests/identifications.
The biggest reason probably being as you said... it was clearly marked. Honestly I would be shocked if they found a criminal dumb enough to walk past it, but not dumb enough to have yet to be caught.
> people probably deliver drugs by bike or car so they don't walk around a busy place stinking of weed.
A year or two ago there was a "shock horror" piece in one of the far-right extremist tabloids, possibly the Daily Mail, claiming that Glasgow was so lawless "you could get a gram of coke delivered quicker than you could get a pizza delivered".
Shut down by one person's tweet - "yes, because one of them arrives in a Vauxhall Corsa and one arrives in an Audi RS3"
OK, so turn them on 100%, scale (your numbers here) the results out to 50 million faces. Now you have still caught 0 criminals and you have 500 false positives.
I've had an idea in the back of my head but I'm no businessman so have this one for free.
Build an AI model, train it from the catalogues of JD Sports and Sports Direct (and other brands like Stone Island etc.) and how to detect balaclavas, illegal electric bikes and e-scooters. Have it link to cameras and do a percentage chance using machine learning on chance of crime. Also increase the percentage if a 'wheely' is done (riding only on back wheel).
Would minority report the majority of crime in this country in one foul swoop.
Could call it ScroteScanner.
Some would call it discrimination but the majority of ASB I see around my area are people dressed/using those exact things.
If they start to catch-on (unlikely) then worse case we have a fancier looking society with gangsters in suits again.
Hook this up into the facial recognition tech they're in no doubt are already using, and then you could also collect data from people's social profiles, ensure they vote for the right parties and generally don't get into trouble like opposing mainstream political ideas and such things.
I've spent a whole of 15 seconds thinking about this and I don't foresee a single drawback here, lets just try it and see if we can prevent future crimes 100%, because then the future will have been saved.
The degree to which the British underclasses adopted a dress-code in the late '80s (quite conveniently, for the authorities), is a social phenomenon that should be studied. They openly self-discriminate, willingly reducing opportunities and outcomes. Was it just evolutionary adaptation (tracksuits make it easier to run in dangerous situations), or was it pursuit of a tribal sense of belonging?
Don't you think that isolating people in poor conditions amongst hardened criminals might make them more likely to commit crime when they get released?
Having lived in shitty neighborhood all my life (not in the UK tho'), I find this pretty laughable. First off, you would be surprised at how petty criminal caught on police tactic fairly quickly and find way around them. But in general, you will just get petty criminal. Sure they are a nuisance, but more a symptom than a cause. And let's say we do just that. You arrest thousand upon thousand of balaclava-wearing, e-scooter driving dudes. What do you do then ? Most of them will have to be released because, well, they didn't do anything. You might catch some of them with minor charges like drug possession or possession of a knife or something.
You successfully wasted thousands of police and justice man-hours for a few petty charges which won't change anything.
“Solving” crime is a hard problem, and one with 0 simple solutions and many, many things we have to work on as a society. Your idea is a net negative in prertty much all aspect.
I think you're missing the real intent of their proposal, which is not to give them due process and release them. Their other comments make it very clear they just want certain people to be gone from their local spaces.
There is plenty of criminology research, including research focussed on long term use of surveillance cameras in London, that supports what you've said.
- Many perpetrators are committing crimes with alcohol and drug impairments, mental disabilities, and as "crimes of passion". You could point 1000 cameras at the scene of the crime and many perpetrators are not going to notice nor care about the cameras. Unfortunately for surveillance camera proponents it's typically the crimes most warranting prevention and investigation (e.g. crimes such as assault) that are impacted least by surveillance cameras. Surveillance cameras instead have been found to have some deterrent effect on minor property crimes (e.g. theft of bicycles or cars) but whether the state is going to invest the resources into investigating and convicting someone who stole a <$1000 bicycle is questionable especially when insurance exists and the onus can then be placed back on property owners to do more to secure their property from thieves.
- Perpetrators were being convicted without use of surveillance cameras and can continue to be convicted without use of surveillance cameras. There may be some argument that surveillance cameras help reduce the cost of getting a conviction (e.g. less evidence needing to be captured?) but not much support to the idea that conviction rates are higher. Quite often the courts, corrections system, government (for funding), etc will push back for a number of reasons--lack of funding for courts to hear minor cases, lack of funding for correction systems, correction systems being found in their current state of funding to have adverse impacts on future criminality, etc.
- The cost-benefit of operating surveillance cameras versus the cost-benefit of spending on other areas of policing (or just public spending in areas such as education and welfare) is hotly debated. Total cost of ownership for each surveillance camera is typically a lot more than people may expect, particularly due to the labour cost of reviewing and processing stored surveillance camera footage. There are of course all the other obvious costs too--camera equipment every X years, poles, electricity conduit installation, data cable conduit installation, wireless repeater installation including leases, backhaul data costs, data centre hosting costs, labour costs for support/operations staff--none of this is cheap. What if this same funding was instead invested in other programs--would there also be reduced crime levels some years in the future?
You may want to check your numbers and remember there is a huge negativity bias on crime.
It seems the sense of safety is often different from the actual numbers especially when stereotypes are involved as shown in parent comment regarding to e-scooters. To such an extent that there is the phenomenon called the crime decline paradox.
> violence against women and girls, whose travel behaviours are shaped by experiences of sexual harassment and sexual offences”.
So much effort to protect little girls. Yet if you get stabbed, say clearly that you've been stabbed, they will not believe you. Then they will arrest your dead body.
I was thinking about this with flock cameras the other day...what's our actual ROI? Was the world horrible before and these initiatives are going to close a monster crime gap or is this just a giant fishing expedition ... just because?
It would be interesting to see how these are justified internally. If I had to guess, it’s either excess budget being channeled into “something” or a justification to reduce street patrols/street crime.
I truly think it's safetyism. People seem to have a lower and lower tolerance for risk as society gets safer.
Since governments are run by people, this safetyism
has become enshrined in law, typified by nonsense like criminalizing free-range parenting and mass surveillance.
its one of the value function that makes it almost impossible to evaluate.
Lets imagine that catching someone in the Interpol list of wanted terrorists is a huge catch. You would expect the avg catch rate to be almost 0 but once one is caught the avg value of the system becomes very easy to justify.
Its the same idea as having photos of known terrorists in airports and train stations to see if guards recognise someone. But with the added benefit that the facial recognition should not miss them.
If the evaluation function is it costs X to run each day and we caught Y number of criminals who robbed phones worth Z > X then the system will come off pretty badly in terms of ROI.
In reality, Flock cameras are bought for “law enforcement”, using taxpayer dollars (therefore free to the people making decisions) and enable both feelings of omniscience and the ability to stalk exes.
So ROI is pretty good when the I comes from someone else and the R is and random act of spying that makes the operators feel powerful.
Cynical, I know, but not empty cynicism I hope. All evidence leads me that way.
The question is if the value of the database (to any party, present or future) of all collected data is greater than the value of catching that one guy (or one guy every few years).
That’s not hard to value, it just doesn’t make Flock look particularly good. If these actually work well, you would expect the average catch rate to be nearly 100%. We had decent rates just having humans look, Flock should be clearing those like crazy if it works.
It doesn’t. I had a car stolen, called it in as they pulled away. I live a block from a Flock camera, 2 others apparently captured it. Car wasn’t intercepted, car was never recovered, no arrests were ever made. They could have put up scarecrows and it would have done as much good for a lot cheaper.
> the system will come off pretty badly in terms of ROI.
It’s a bad evaluation function. A lot of the cost of crime isn’t directly the crime, it’s the economic deadweight of trying to deter the crime. Every car needs anti-theft parts, lots of people buy home security systems, armored cars to do bank drops, etc, all this stuff we pay for that exists solely to try to stop crime.
Flock would look great if it worked so well it made armored cars and car anti-theft obsolete. It won’t, but if it did the ROI would be crazy.
That only happens because you’re poor. If you were someone the police would have done more. My friend that is rich, always has an easy with with police when some problem happens.
The real ROI is the change in behaviour of people constantly surveiled. We know people change their behaviour when under constant scrutiny and this why the elites want it.
Think back to the capital riots/insurrection/what-ever you want to call it; they used similar systems to identify and arrest those participants. Heavily publicize how many people and who; doesn't matter if you a 63yo grandmom or a pastor, we will find you and prosecute. Showing that you are prosecuting the "normal" people is part of it, show that and you make them less likely to show up to the next thing, less likely to provide support.
The Capital has many cameras owned by the feds, so they could easily do that. Chicago, Atlanta, LA not so much. When anti-ICE action takes place with protestors in black block, going under umbrellas, makes it hard to identify and prove. With strategically placed cameras, you can see what cars came in the area. You get statistical data that shows if they are there normally there. Get enough abnormality and you get enough for a search warrant.
Seems strange to use prosecuting a group of people attacking the democratic process, the basis of the country and a clearly treasonous act, as an example of cameras being used to “over” prosecute to intimidate the public.
Why should it matter if you are a 63yo grandmom or pastor?
They're not wrong that it was done very publicly, regardless of whether you believe (as you and I clearly do) that they were right to be prosecuted. Luigi Mangione is another example of the panopticon being visibly flaunted by the state, and they were more explicit that time about showing it as deterrence. Literally gave so much surveillance footage to the media to prove how much they could see.
I am not understanding the significance of the panopticon claim. It's common knowledge that camera price and bandwidth and digital storage prices have gone down significantly over the years, and quality has gone up.
That the government has used them to prosecute a man who assassinated someone or a large group of traitors does not seem to be the indictment of the capabilities.
An example of the government combing through records to pile on trivial charges to throw at a peaceful protestor or otherwise "over" charge them to create a chilling effect seems more apt for a discussion about the dangers of a panopticon.
Sure, in that case let's use Cop City in Georgia. That feels more like "authoritarian state seeks to quash dissent". Plenty of grey area there, plenty of overreach by the State to shut them up.
"“See that?” whispered Granger. “It'll be you; right up at the end of
that street is our victim. See how our camera is coming in? Building
the scene. Suspense. Long shot. Right now, some poor fellow is out for
a walk. A rarity. An odd one. Don't think the police don't know the
habits of queer ducks like that, men who walk mornings for the hell of
it, or for reasons of insomnia. Anyway, the police have had him
charted for months, years. Never know when that sort of information
might be handy. And today, it turns out, it's very usable indeed. It
saves face. Oh, God, look there!”" - Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
When I brought up J6, it was not because I wanted to discuss the ideology but because this is the first time to my knowledge that we prosecuted over 1,500 people for a single event. Looking at the NPR database; Violence is 417 cases, Property destruction is 55 cases, Conspiracy is 48 cases. Assuming no overlap between those, you have ~980 people that fall into the "useful idiot" or "stupid mob" category.
Should they have been there? No of course not.
If my point can't be understood because I am using J6 as an example, please substitute J6 with Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter.
The change we are seeing with technology is not the amount of data we are storing but that we are able to process this data and build it out into a model.
hypothetical We saw you on a camera on J6 in the Capital but also have cell data showing you traveled down with other people. Don't have them on camera but the cell data shows they were close to you at all times, so we can charge them.
I wanted to link to a video of a protest I saw a little while ago; it showed protestors in Black Block swarm some cops then all run under a group of people that had umbrellas. When the group moved, all the black block clothes were on the ground so the responsible parties couldn't be tracked. However this time the police drone captures some footage of them before they changed into the black block, so they were able to make arrests.
This would be able to take it further, now you could see who the protestors trained with and charge them with Conspiracy.
January 6th was not a surveillance society win. It was a flash mob that live streamed their crimes, along with identification done by private individuals sleuthing in forums and chat groups.
The Nancy Guthrie case felt like ring cameras and Flock or traffic cams should have figured it out in no time. Yet it didn't happen. I feel like this is going to be something that only really works in cases, where investigation would solve it.
Luigi Mangione got caught because he messed up. A simple change of clothes or ditching the very individual looking items he was carrying. If he had done that, you wouldn't have had a facial ID on him.
The Nancy Guthrie case on the other hand went nowhere, because we couldn't definitively make a match.
On the other hand we have multiple instances of bad data causing people to be subject to being targeted by the police. We have police threatening or arresting people based on a lack of corroboration. Some times ignoring clearly exonerating evidence.
The world is a better place without license plate cams.
I'm of the opinion, consistent with principles of the Founders and at least one Constitutional amendment (or the interpretation of it by millions of people) that the people should have the literal, physical power to overthrow their government. If that becomes physically impossible, there is no remedy for a government that decides to reject democracy and citizens' rights to freedom.
It happens that the J6 rioters were on the wrong side of truth and history, but I would rather some of them get away with it than live in a perfectly effective panopticon.
It isn't an effective panopticon. It can find people who aren't trying to hide. How hard is it going to be to fool if you can subvert it with a few fake plates (even easier to make with those convenient paper plates and it). An effective system wouldn't be creating a bunch of false positives. Luigi Mangione got caught because of one security cam. If he had just changed his look, we would never have got the hostel picture.
Until it’s your civil liberties being infringed upon and you have no recourse against the faceless authoritarian bureaucracy propped up by a fallible surveillance system owned and operated by racists and bigots.
Edit: we’ll be arguing about “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” for the rest of time, won’t we.
Can we cut to the bone a little bit? The recent crime panics are not about a partner assaulting their live-in partner or a random home burglary. There is no real "ROI" to be had.
It's purely about the unease of living in chaotic cities, the random stabbings, the shoplifting, the visible homelessness etc. Flock is the stopgap here.
Partly the "feeling" of chaos is just that, a feeling, driven significantly by algorithmic feeds feeding us every random crime from around the country 24/7. Husband murders wife in a murderous rage? No one hear's about it. Mentally ill man murders a woman on the train in a Tier 2 city, immediate nationwide breaking news.
The other part though is a real dissolution in how we take care of our mentally ill. Complex topic [1].
I think complaining about Flock is complaining about the symptom. Today we dogpile on Flock to get it cancelled, tomorrow the public will reach for something else. We have to fix the underlying disease, which is a combination of the two factors above.
Let us also acknowledged that we're living in the safest time in history and modern American cities are extremely safe, despite the unhinged propaganda from the right.
Some American cities like St Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Memphis, New Orleans have averaged about 50 homicides per 100,000 per year over the last 10 years. Detroit averaged about 40.
It is reasonable for people living in those cities to wonder why the rate cannot be 1 or 2 per 100,000 like it is in most European cities, most prosperous American suburbs, and has been consistently for the last 2 or 3 centuries in England and New England (except for a rise to about 4 during the 1970s and 1980s in New England).
It's not just politicized propaganda. A lot of unsafety feeling is almost self-inflicted.
In my opinion apps like the Citizen[0] app are some of the worst offenders. They constantly bombard you with scary notifications, creating a constant environment of fear. With that app people are constantly aware of things that are happening in your general area without any real benefit of informing you. It turns the mildly-annoying-but-ignoreable mentally ill person on the street corner from someone that "scares" the 10 people around them into someone that scares 10k people in the area.
Citizen is also nakedly a rightwing propaganda platform. Its primary value proposition is to create fear and a paranoia to boost tough-on-crime politics. Just because it’s an app doesn’t mean it’s not propaganda. The users are the product.
I would have said that they are mainly doing it to exploit the mechanism as it just serves their profit motif, and everything else is just a byproduct.
However, it appears that when I looked at the list of investors earlier, I've missed that Peter Thiel is among them. So yeah, there are clear political ties.
We were. Until about somewhere between 2016 and 2018 at which time crime rates went up significantly. Between the 1970s and the mid 2010s crime consistently went down, year over year across almost every big city. In the last decade however, almost 30 years of crime reduction got reversed in some places. Its inconsistent as some areas show this pattern, others don't. And the main differentiating factor is mostly tactical and on the ground. Meaning it is directly about changes to policing policy. Trying to ignore that this is happening is just gaslighting and it is a major reason that drove voting patterns in the last election.
PS Tracking crime stats is tough as property crime is inconsistently reported. This is why you often see criminologists take murder stats and only murder stats in their analysis and then estimate other crime stats back from that. Basically, once people realize the police won't investigate property crime, they stop reporting things that aren't insured.
In the UK there is a yearly survey regarding crime and I've not read it for a few years (I've emigrated) but a regular theme used to be that people interviewed personally felt safe and weren't likely to be victims of crime but thought everyone else in the country was less safe and everywhere they didn't live had higher crime than it did.
The public perception of crime is persistently incorrect for many if not most people and this incorrect, emotional rather than evidence-based view of the world is unfortunately what drives political pressure.
> The public perception of crime is persistently incorrect for many if not most people and this incorrect, emotional rather than evidence-based view of the world is unfortunately what drives political pressure.
Some of this is definitely the BBC's fault. I happened to be over at a friend's one morning and he had it on. It smelt just like right-wing media in the US with big stories on mega important topics like... shoplifting. The crime reporting just felt really amplified up.
> Today we dogpile on Flock to get it cancelled, tomorrow the public will reach for something else.
Who's the "we" in this sentence? The people who want to keep cities crime-ridden? And why does your opinion matter more than that of the public? I thought these "we" were pro-democracy?
It would be so nice of government projects and regulations came with some sort of KPO. And if they aren’t reached the thing is reverted/removed. With a bit of flexibility of course, to be sure there is room for debate. I’m sure that could be gamed in lots of ways but with the current status quo is just so much vibes
There’s no way they captured Luigi using normal means at a random McDonald’s because of a random ID. I always figured it used some unpublished data and facial tracking and was high profile enough to use in this case with only a flimsy “parallel construction” necessary
Occam's Razor my fiend. Ask yourself what's the higher statistical probability in Trump's America:
A minimum wage teenager, in a city of less than 50,000, on the tills during the breakfast rush, managed to positively ID the suspect, despite him wearing a mask and beanie, based on ambiguous CCTV photos, and decided to snitch. He was then detained within 11 minutes.
Versus
A federal agency tapped into CCTV or kiosk-cameras automatically ID'd him via facial recognition, and then established clean, admissible evidentiary trail to mask an unconstitutional investigative source.
I found some news articles that seem to back up this stat. It wasn't all attributable to the cameras though. It also included targeted enforcement strategy with bait cars and what not.
Well, they aren't really for stopping crime. They're for identifying political dissent so it can be crushed early. Stopping crime requires manpower that costs money, and if they were successfuy they'd have a harder time making the case they need even more surveillance beyond the currently monstrous amount no one could have even imagined 40 years ago.
Flock claims they perform greater than 20 billion plate reads per month and allegedly are used in solving a few thousand cases per year. Their actual usefulness in those solved cases is not quantified. A customer could have used the cameras for a search that returned nothing or produced no additional leads, but Flock could still say they were used in the investigation. So the ROI is not great.
We can probably calculate the investment, but how do you calculate the return? What's the value of solving a crime? Is it solely the value of preventing some future crimes by the suspect, or does it have intrinsic value?
This happened a few years ago before flock. Some idiot drove down the street with a pellet gun shooting at car windows. About five of us needed to pay several hundred dollars a piece to replace the glass.
My street is not "horrible", but everyone on my street would have loved to have a camera that recorded what happened. Even if we didn't get a working license plate number, it would have been useful to see what happened.
It doesn't have to be a "monster crime gap" to get people to vote for these things. It just takes some selfish idiots.
Trying to be as charitable as possible, is that this is a technology that allows people (the average municipal police force) that can only solve the most obvious of crimes to solve marginally less obvious crimes - at the great expense of the general populace through loss of privacy and abuse.
This is a take I hadn't heard before, pretty interesting. I wonder if there are already any fiction out there where some widespread religion turns out to be an automated mass surveillance and policing system gone awry. Neat concept
> "The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms."
> "God and the gods were apparitions of observation, judgment and punishment. Other sentiments towards them were secondary."
> "The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment."
> "The individual desires judgment. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization."
> "The human being created civilization not because of a willingness but because of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning."
> "God was a dream of good government."
> "You will soon have your God, and you will make it with your own hands."
That is true of some religions - e.g. moralistic therapeutic deism. It is sort of true of Buddhism because of belief in karma, but that is an automatic mechanism rather than a punishment.
It is not true of Christianity, which promises forgiveness, nor of the other Abrahamic religions.
Not a theologist, but pretty sure that the default destination for the bad Christians is hell.
There is an out-of-hell card you can get if you pay your dues to the local enforcement branch (before you die, they need today’s money not after life checks)
> Not a theologist, but pretty sure that the default destination for the bad Christians is hell.
Absolutely not.
> There is an out-of-hell card you can get if you pay your dues to the local enforcement branch (before you die, they need today’s money not after life checks)
Where did you get that from?
I am assuming you are just badly informed but that is really stretching the assumption of good faith.
The Catholic church believes hell is self chosen:
> To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
Traditional protestants often believe the same, but there is variety. Some believe all human beings are redeemed, for example.
Some evangelicals do believe in hell as a punishment, but most of those also believe faith is the key to redemption, so you are safe if you are a Christian.
Yeah following on this, when you look at places that actually are low-crime it's almost always cultural. But if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail I guess.
Their watchlist was only ~450 people, and it was restricted to people relevant to the transport police. The system was also overt and clearly marked, there were alternative routes that avoided the cameras and even then they were on 3-6 hours per day.
The headline suggests this system is not only invasive but also ineffective. While I agree it's a privacy nightmare, I also think those idiotic deployment conditions set them up for failure. At least we know there aren't many false positives, it could've been worse.
> We know the technology works, but using it in supermarkets to deter shoplifters and prevent attacks on staff is very different from deploying it to catch people on a public transport network. Success in a shop means no such people coming in. Success for the police trying to catch people means people being caught. In that respect the trial doesn’t appear to have been very fruitful.
ahahaha. "My magical face detection software worked because (according to our detection software) none of the undesirables came in!"
Where does this end? Drones following each of us every time we leave our homes and otherwise peeking through our windows, doing spectrum analysis, etc.?
I don’t think it’s fair to conclude this doesn’t work at all.
The reason they did not get any arrests could be that sought-for criminals now avoid those stations. Given that there are relatively few of such criminals, that’s hard to prove or disprove (traffic would go down, but only by a slight amount)
It also could mean such criminals already avoided those stations, to start with. Again, hard to prove.
It also might mean people misbehave less now at these stations. So, did the number of incidents at such stations go down?
That, I think should be easier to (dis)prove, but also doesn’t require running live face recognition. Recording and only looking at recordings after an issue is reported would be the better option.
I mean a lot of our lives, resemble 1984, but this is literally the UK, where 1984 was set. And then they are doing all of the 1984 activities with no shame whatsoever.
Hitler was elected democratically. Democracy is non-excuse for the complete destruction of civil liberties.
The cameras in UK are there to remember citizens that they are watched. They are there for when there are peaceful protests to remember citizens that they are watched. Surveillance state created by cameras on the streets and tracking on everybody's phones is perfectly ok for our rulers.
I hear again and again that China is "bad" but I see that western countries copy everything from them... except going after big corporations. We will gather personal data and have files for each citizen, punish peaceful protests, use social media to control the masses but punishing the rich like China does is unacceptable. That seems to be the red line that the West will not cross, the one that protects billionaries.
It's worse in western countries because we like to pretend that we are superior to the "real" authoritarian regimes. Our governments do the same bs but under the veil of "western values".
I mean in here we consume the propaganda of the USA empire, over there they consume theirs. We can say they mistreat Uyghurs and they can say we bomb Arabs. And we think we prefer our empire to theirs and they think they prefer their empire to ours. Everyone involved thinks they have the superior culture, or do you think the Chinese think differently on this?
I know someone involved in this. They put up huge signs saying you’re going to be recorded, and offer an unrecorded route to go down if you don’t want to be checked… so obviously all the criminals just go down that route.
It’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever seen. Classic Britain. Wouldn’t want the criminals to be filmed without their consent!
Is this just a stupid headline? do you think there should be more crimes per 500,000 people seen on a portion of the metro? My metro has 1 million riders a day I don’t think it has even one serious crime per week…?
177 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 34.0 ms ] threadUncomfortable facts certain bigots dont want to understand.
"He said 103 arrests has been made so far and there was one false alert which did not result in an arrest.
Supt Luke Dillon said overall crime figures in the Fairfield ward, where the pilot has been held, fell by 12% per cent.
"We're seeing reductions in almost all crime types, certainly in shoplifting and robbery," he said. "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2056r07rjlo
People are being matched against an existing watchlist so the people arrested are those the Police would arrest anyway if they found them.
Locking you up in a cage for days when you did nothing wrong, dragging you into court where you need to defend your life is pretty much almost the worst thing a modern western state can do to you.
So it's kind of relevant if they're doing that.
There are two types of cameras – the Flock type of which there are many more in the UK which record all the time and spot people committing a crime where the video is kept and these which do not retain video but are used in real time by police to see if there is anyone who they already have put on a list to be arrested.
There is a case of a flase positive - detained for 30 minutes
For example the falling of the crime figures could be just because there where more officers around attending the camera's. Or actually that just there being a camera already has a deterring effect, I assume the perpetrators didn't know it was LFR.
I also wonder if the resources spend in a traditional way would have been more effective. I think 3 month trail to make 103 arrests seems a bit low, but I am not familiar with the normal "arrest rate" in that area.
Most shops do have cameras and they do not seem to be a deterrant.
Also the cameras were not in constant use for 3 months. I don't think we know for how long and when they were actually used.
"Last month BTP announced it was extending the trial for a further four months and expanding the deployments to include London Underground stations. "
Pretty much all I ever read about these systems is heinous false positives. I've currently set up automation to pull the local data that includes police activity. One of the towns over from me has, at least, 6 Flock cameras (probably more) for a locale of less than 2000 people. I've not once seen anything related to ALPR or any camera system providing any influence on assisting a crime. You'd think Mr. Langley would be begging police chiefs around the US to put in a positive spin to public information around these digital watchers.
But the morons buying these systems are also the morons taking state tax dollars to buy SWAT vehicles for 100s of thousands of dollars because they want to cosplay GI Joe. Yet... You want a park? Or something that's actually useful in your local community? Fund raise it yourself is the response.
500,000 individual checks could have been for the same person. While that is extremely unlikely, it's also unlikely they scanned 500,000 unique people.
The cops keeps doing it and the rich join in on holidays to take a shortcut to JFK from downtown Manhattan. The city were 9/11 was apparently a big deal wants to you feel like you're in a war zone all the time for shortcuts and a few $ savings on helicopter fuel.
This to me is the ultimate security theater environment, where the state is constantly pressing a false sense of FUD.
[0] https://stopthechopnynj.org/
I think businesses can cope with less than a helicopter crash per year.
For scale 500k people is 2 days of Liverpool Street Stations daily average
The article doesn't say, and I haven't seen the cameras, but it's not like your getting every single person parsing through those stations.
But, yes, the numbers seems low.
[0] https://www.btp.police.uk/police-forces/british-transport-po...
If you have two coins and you spend one, you cannot truthfully say "I spent the coins". The definite article "the" means all of something you have in this usage, not a single member of a class of something you have. It would be true to say "I spent a coin" or "I spent some of the coins".
To do the lookup they're still hitting a database somewhere to know you aren't a concern, which is prime time to log that you were seen, when, and where. Then your "images and biometric data" can be "immediately deleted" since they've gotten anything else they want now.
This is just a theory, but I bet I'm not far off.
Sounds like it was intended to achieve the outcome it achieved - a near zero false positive rate. If I were a betting person, I would wager the threshold for a match was set comically high.
https://www.btp.police.uk/police-forces/british-transport-po...
How many known criminals have biometrics of them in the first place?
Of the criminals that do have identifiable biometrics, do they operate in that area?
We also don't know the false negative rate. Perhaps it's very high in order to keep the false positive rate as low as possible.
These are things pulled out of thin air that could easily explain why 500,000 face scans (not people) provided no arrests/identifications.
The biggest reason probably being as you said... it was clearly marked. Honestly I would be shocked if they found a criminal dumb enough to walk past it, but not dumb enough to have yet to be caught.
A year or two ago there was a "shock horror" piece in one of the far-right extremist tabloids, possibly the Daily Mail, claiming that Glasgow was so lawless "you could get a gram of coke delivered quicker than you could get a pizza delivered".
Shut down by one person's tweet - "yes, because one of them arrives in a Vauxhall Corsa and one arrives in an Audi RS3"
I mean I expect you could get that, for the right sort of money.
Maybe not in Brigton, but certainly in the wealthier parts of the South Side.
Build an AI model, train it from the catalogues of JD Sports and Sports Direct (and other brands like Stone Island etc.) and how to detect balaclavas, illegal electric bikes and e-scooters. Have it link to cameras and do a percentage chance using machine learning on chance of crime. Also increase the percentage if a 'wheely' is done (riding only on back wheel).
Would minority report the majority of crime in this country in one foul swoop.
Could call it ScroteScanner.
Some would call it discrimination but the majority of ASB I see around my area are people dressed/using those exact things.
If they start to catch-on (unlikely) then worse case we have a fancier looking society with gangsters in suits again.
I've spent a whole of 15 seconds thinking about this and I don't foresee a single drawback here, lets just try it and see if we can prevent future crimes 100%, because then the future will have been saved.
The strongest predictor (by far) for committing a crime is having a prior criminal record.
It's "fell swoop".
It would probably pay for itself.
- Many perpetrators are committing crimes with alcohol and drug impairments, mental disabilities, and as "crimes of passion". You could point 1000 cameras at the scene of the crime and many perpetrators are not going to notice nor care about the cameras. Unfortunately for surveillance camera proponents it's typically the crimes most warranting prevention and investigation (e.g. crimes such as assault) that are impacted least by surveillance cameras. Surveillance cameras instead have been found to have some deterrent effect on minor property crimes (e.g. theft of bicycles or cars) but whether the state is going to invest the resources into investigating and convicting someone who stole a <$1000 bicycle is questionable especially when insurance exists and the onus can then be placed back on property owners to do more to secure their property from thieves.
- Perpetrators were being convicted without use of surveillance cameras and can continue to be convicted without use of surveillance cameras. There may be some argument that surveillance cameras help reduce the cost of getting a conviction (e.g. less evidence needing to be captured?) but not much support to the idea that conviction rates are higher. Quite often the courts, corrections system, government (for funding), etc will push back for a number of reasons--lack of funding for courts to hear minor cases, lack of funding for correction systems, correction systems being found in their current state of funding to have adverse impacts on future criminality, etc.
- The cost-benefit of operating surveillance cameras versus the cost-benefit of spending on other areas of policing (or just public spending in areas such as education and welfare) is hotly debated. Total cost of ownership for each surveillance camera is typically a lot more than people may expect, particularly due to the labour cost of reviewing and processing stored surveillance camera footage. There are of course all the other obvious costs too--camera equipment every X years, poles, electricity conduit installation, data cable conduit installation, wireless repeater installation including leases, backhaul data costs, data centre hosting costs, labour costs for support/operations staff--none of this is cheap. What if this same funding was instead invested in other programs--would there also be reduced crime levels some years in the future?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television#Crim...
It seems the sense of safety is often different from the actual numbers especially when stereotypes are involved as shown in parent comment regarding to e-scooters. To such an extent that there is the phenomenon called the crime decline paradox.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/public-perceptions-of-crime-at-od...
(praeiudicium, a judgement in advance)
So much effort to protect little girls. Yet if you get stabbed, say clearly that you've been stabbed, they will not believe you. Then they will arrest your dead body.
Since governments are run by people, this safetyism has become enshrined in law, typified by nonsense like criminalizing free-range parenting and mass surveillance.
its one of the value function that makes it almost impossible to evaluate.
Lets imagine that catching someone in the Interpol list of wanted terrorists is a huge catch. You would expect the avg catch rate to be almost 0 but once one is caught the avg value of the system becomes very easy to justify.
Its the same idea as having photos of known terrorists in airports and train stations to see if guards recognise someone. But with the added benefit that the facial recognition should not miss them.
If the evaluation function is it costs X to run each day and we caught Y number of criminals who robbed phones worth Z > X then the system will come off pretty badly in terms of ROI.
In reality, Flock cameras are bought for “law enforcement”, using taxpayer dollars (therefore free to the people making decisions) and enable both feelings of omniscience and the ability to stalk exes.
So ROI is pretty good when the I comes from someone else and the R is and random act of spying that makes the operators feel powerful.
Cynical, I know, but not empty cynicism I hope. All evidence leads me that way.
It doesn’t. I had a car stolen, called it in as they pulled away. I live a block from a Flock camera, 2 others apparently captured it. Car wasn’t intercepted, car was never recovered, no arrests were ever made. They could have put up scarecrows and it would have done as much good for a lot cheaper.
> the system will come off pretty badly in terms of ROI.
It’s a bad evaluation function. A lot of the cost of crime isn’t directly the crime, it’s the economic deadweight of trying to deter the crime. Every car needs anti-theft parts, lots of people buy home security systems, armored cars to do bank drops, etc, all this stuff we pay for that exists solely to try to stop crime.
Flock would look great if it worked so well it made armored cars and car anti-theft obsolete. It won’t, but if it did the ROI would be crazy.
Think back to the capital riots/insurrection/what-ever you want to call it; they used similar systems to identify and arrest those participants. Heavily publicize how many people and who; doesn't matter if you a 63yo grandmom or a pastor, we will find you and prosecute. Showing that you are prosecuting the "normal" people is part of it, show that and you make them less likely to show up to the next thing, less likely to provide support.
The Capital has many cameras owned by the feds, so they could easily do that. Chicago, Atlanta, LA not so much. When anti-ICE action takes place with protestors in black block, going under umbrellas, makes it hard to identify and prove. With strategically placed cameras, you can see what cars came in the area. You get statistical data that shows if they are there normally there. Get enough abnormality and you get enough for a search warrant.
Why should it matter if you are a 63yo grandmom or pastor?
That the government has used them to prosecute a man who assassinated someone or a large group of traitors does not seem to be the indictment of the capabilities.
An example of the government combing through records to pile on trivial charges to throw at a peaceful protestor or otherwise "over" charge them to create a chilling effect seems more apt for a discussion about the dangers of a panopticon.
When I brought up J6, it was not because I wanted to discuss the ideology but because this is the first time to my knowledge that we prosecuted over 1,500 people for a single event. Looking at the NPR database; Violence is 417 cases, Property destruction is 55 cases, Conspiracy is 48 cases. Assuming no overlap between those, you have ~980 people that fall into the "useful idiot" or "stupid mob" category.
Should they have been there? No of course not.
If my point can't be understood because I am using J6 as an example, please substitute J6 with Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter.
The change we are seeing with technology is not the amount of data we are storing but that we are able to process this data and build it out into a model.
hypothetical We saw you on a camera on J6 in the Capital but also have cell data showing you traveled down with other people. Don't have them on camera but the cell data shows they were close to you at all times, so we can charge them.
I wanted to link to a video of a protest I saw a little while ago; it showed protestors in Black Block swarm some cops then all run under a group of people that had umbrellas. When the group moved, all the black block clothes were on the ground so the responsible parties couldn't be tracked. However this time the police drone captures some footage of them before they changed into the black block, so they were able to make arrests.
This would be able to take it further, now you could see who the protestors trained with and charge them with Conspiracy.
The Nancy Guthrie case felt like ring cameras and Flock or traffic cams should have figured it out in no time. Yet it didn't happen. I feel like this is going to be something that only really works in cases, where investigation would solve it.
The Nancy Guthrie case on the other hand went nowhere, because we couldn't definitively make a match.
On the other hand we have multiple instances of bad data causing people to be subject to being targeted by the police. We have police threatening or arresting people based on a lack of corroboration. Some times ignoring clearly exonerating evidence.
The world is a better place without license plate cams.
It happens that the J6 rioters were on the wrong side of truth and history, but I would rather some of them get away with it than live in a perfectly effective panopticon.
Edit: we’ll be arguing about “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” for the rest of time, won’t we.
it's there to keep the well behaving citizens in check.
very authoritarian at the core.
It's purely about the unease of living in chaotic cities, the random stabbings, the shoplifting, the visible homelessness etc. Flock is the stopgap here.
Partly the "feeling" of chaos is just that, a feeling, driven significantly by algorithmic feeds feeding us every random crime from around the country 24/7. Husband murders wife in a murderous rage? No one hear's about it. Mentally ill man murders a woman on the train in a Tier 2 city, immediate nationwide breaking news.
The other part though is a real dissolution in how we take care of our mentally ill. Complex topic [1].
I think complaining about Flock is complaining about the symptom. Today we dogpile on Flock to get it cancelled, tomorrow the public will reach for something else. We have to fix the underlying disease, which is a combination of the two factors above.
[1]: https://time.com/6265241/america-care-of-mentally-ill-people...
It is reasonable for people living in those cities to wonder why the rate cannot be 1 or 2 per 100,000 like it is in most European cities, most prosperous American suburbs, and has been consistently for the last 2 or 3 centuries in England and New England (except for a rise to about 4 during the 1970s and 1980s in New England).
In my opinion apps like the Citizen[0] app are some of the worst offenders. They constantly bombard you with scary notifications, creating a constant environment of fear. With that app people are constantly aware of things that are happening in your general area without any real benefit of informing you. It turns the mildly-annoying-but-ignoreable mentally ill person on the street corner from someone that "scares" the 10 people around them into someone that scares 10k people in the area.
[0]: https://citizen.com/
However, it appears that when I looked at the list of investors earlier, I've missed that Peter Thiel is among them. So yeah, there are clear political ties.
I’m not disagreeing with the trend, but it effects people differently.
PS Tracking crime stats is tough as property crime is inconsistently reported. This is why you often see criminologists take murder stats and only murder stats in their analysis and then estimate other crime stats back from that. Basically, once people realize the police won't investigate property crime, they stop reporting things that aren't insured.
The public perception of crime is persistently incorrect for many if not most people and this incorrect, emotional rather than evidence-based view of the world is unfortunately what drives political pressure.
Some of this is definitely the BBC's fault. I happened to be over at a friend's one morning and he had it on. It smelt just like right-wing media in the US with big stories on mega important topics like... shoplifting. The crime reporting just felt really amplified up.
Who's the "we" in this sentence? The people who want to keep cities crime-ridden? And why does your opinion matter more than that of the public? I thought these "we" were pro-democracy?
What exactly have they stopped?
Unless this happened a second time, it wasn't really reported on much until after it blew up on social media.
A minimum wage teenager, in a city of less than 50,000, on the tills during the breakfast rush, managed to positively ID the suspect, despite him wearing a mask and beanie, based on ambiguous CCTV photos, and decided to snitch. He was then detained within 11 minutes.
Versus
A federal agency tapped into CCTV or kiosk-cameras automatically ID'd him via facial recognition, and then established clean, admissible evidentiary trail to mask an unconstitutional investigative source.
In San Fransico Car Breakins dropped almost immediately by 50% and 75% in the long run since Flock cameras were introduced
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/car-brea...
I found some news articles that seem to back up this stat. It wasn't all attributable to the cameras though. It also included targeted enforcement strategy with bait cars and what not.
https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/flock-cameras-help-iden...
https://www.wsbradio.com/news/local/cobb-police-credit-new-t...
There's some studies showing support but it's very hard to attribute cause to a crime rate that constantly fluctuates and has a myriad of causes
My street is not "horrible", but everyone on my street would have loved to have a camera that recorded what happened. Even if we didn't get a working license plate number, it would have been useful to see what happened.
It doesn't have to be a "monster crime gap" to get people to vote for these things. It just takes some selfish idiots.
We try to reinvent something that claims that keeps tabs on everyone and for sure will punish you if you don’t behave well but will reward you if do!
The thing has a name. It’s the religion.
> "God and the gods were apparitions of observation, judgment and punishment. Other sentiments towards them were secondary."
> "The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment."
> "The individual desires judgment. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization."
> "The human being created civilization not because of a willingness but because of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning."
> "God was a dream of good government."
> "You will soon have your God, and you will make it with your own hands."
- Morpheus ( Deus Ex, 2000)
It is not true of Christianity, which promises forgiveness, nor of the other Abrahamic religions.
There is an out-of-hell card you can get if you pay your dues to the local enforcement branch (before you die, they need today’s money not after life checks)
Absolutely not.
> There is an out-of-hell card you can get if you pay your dues to the local enforcement branch (before you die, they need today’s money not after life checks)
Where did you get that from?
I am assuming you are just badly informed but that is really stretching the assumption of good faith.
The Catholic church believes hell is self chosen:
> To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
https://ccc.cab/1033
Traditional protestants often believe the same, but there is variety. Some believe all human beings are redeemed, for example.
Some evangelicals do believe in hell as a punishment, but most of those also believe faith is the key to redemption, so you are safe if you are a Christian.
Their watchlist was only ~450 people, and it was restricted to people relevant to the transport police. The system was also overt and clearly marked, there were alternative routes that avoided the cameras and even then they were on 3-6 hours per day.
The headline suggests this system is not only invasive but also ineffective. While I agree it's a privacy nightmare, I also think those idiotic deployment conditions set them up for failure. At least we know there aren't many false positives, it could've been worse.
ahahaha. "My magical face detection software worked because (according to our detection software) none of the undesirables came in!"
Let me off this stupid ride, please.
(And if you don’t use one of those routers, similar tech is coming to the next generation of cell towers.)
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2026/08/24/comcast-t...
The reason they did not get any arrests could be that sought-for criminals now avoid those stations. Given that there are relatively few of such criminals, that’s hard to prove or disprove (traffic would go down, but only by a slight amount)
It also could mean such criminals already avoided those stations, to start with. Again, hard to prove.
It also might mean people misbehave less now at these stations. So, did the number of incidents at such stations go down?
That, I think should be easier to (dis)prove, but also doesn’t require running live face recognition. Recording and only looking at recordings after an issue is reported would be the better option.
Hitler was elected democratically. Democracy is non-excuse for the complete destruction of civil liberties.
I hear again and again that China is "bad" but I see that western countries copy everything from them... except going after big corporations. We will gather personal data and have files for each citizen, punish peaceful protests, use social media to control the masses but punishing the rich like China does is unacceptable. That seems to be the red line that the West will not cross, the one that protects billionaries.
https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/po...
It’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever seen. Classic Britain. Wouldn’t want the criminals to be filmed without their consent!