[jimnotgym]

> 1) It clearly does not work (as opposed to "it has a low accuracy" which just means they will have to filter manually)

When you point accuracy that poor at a sample so large the number of false positives is so colossally large that the resources to 'filter manually' are large, meanwhile a free- country is branding huge numbers of innocent people as possible suspects. So no it doesn't work. For it to work in a free-country we should be looking at five-nine accuracy at least.

> 3) Having a working solution would mean they could police with fewer police officers

But they don't have one...

[ChrisSD]

Say you have 10,000 people attending a football match. Your intelligence suggests a known hooligan is amongst the crowd. How do you search for him and why wouldn't facial recognition be helpful?

[jimnotgym]

As long as you have the resources to sort through 145 people to see if they are your man[0].

The really worrying thing for me is they use the excuse that they are looking for > "potential terrorist targets"

and then say

> "poor quality images" supplied by agencies including Uefa

UEFA is the governing body of the European football championship, now obviously famed for fighting terrorism. Terrorism is the excuse they love to use to take away civil liberties.

It continues to worry me

> over 450 arrests

and then discusses 2 convictions. It is a very worrying world we are slipping into where getting lots of arrests counts as a result

> no-one had been arrested after an incorrect match

This is not for the police to decide, it is for the courts. Hi-five 450 and 2 convictions of note

> The technology has also helped identify vulnerable people in times of crisis.

So it's already being used more generally than arresting terrorists, and football hooligans! It crept up on us over the course of one article!

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/05/police-defend-fa...