[vixen99]

For those who prefer not to go to the Daily Mail directly:

"Camera cross-checked photos of faces of passers-by against wanted database. One man covered face before officers stopped him and took his picture anyway. He was fined £90 at scene in Romford by police who arrested three other people Police say they know of human rights concerns but want to make London safer"

[dominicr]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recogniti...

(Adding a link to a news source from the other side of the aisle to the Mail.)

[NeedMoreTea]

Less other side of the aisle than the Mail being an issue for having a long, long history of inaccurate and plain made up "reporting".

[simonh]

>..but want to make London safer.

It would be nice to be safer from police harassment.

[TomK32]

That old Sinéad O'Connor is still ringing true https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n14lwdpYkAA

[sanbor]

> ..but want to make London safer.

By the police stopping you, taking your picture, and trying to match your face to a list of criminals with 96% of false positive match rate.

[pbhjpbhj]

Hmm, it's not like they go "positive match, right bake 'em away toys". The officer will analyse the match and on their confirmation that match means there's reasonable cause to question you, ask for ID, or whatever.

[blakes]

I wonder if there should be reasonable cause to take a photo and match it first?

[willyt]

Technically he was fined for swearing at the police, not for covering his face. If he had said nothing he would not have been fined but might have been searched as the police have the power to stop and search anyone who they have reasonable cause to suspect is acting suspiciously.

[epanchin]

That’s not entirely accurate. They have the power to stop and search where they believe you have been involved in a crime or are carrying a prohibited item.

They must have grounds to suspect they will find what they are looking for.

[rurp]

If he had remained quiet he would not have been fined for swearing, but he likely would have been fined for something else. It seems pretty clear the intention was to issue a fine, not to reduce swearing.

[kwhitefoot]

But they didn't have reasonable cause.

[sleepychu]

Actually in England they don't need reasonable grounds.

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rig...

> You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer.

This can happen if it is suspected that:

    serious violence could take place
    you’re carrying a weapon or have used one
    you’re in a specific location or area

[Zak]

> you’re in a specific location or area

Are the specific locations this applies to defined in law, or can a senior police officer just say "this neighborhood has a lot of criminals; search everyone"?

[sleepychu]

Bit of a mix, seems possible to make justification for an entire city. [1]

[1] - https://twitter.com/brumpolice/status/1100765101156634624

[Zak]

That's... even worse than I feared, and most of the responses to the tweet are supportive.

[onetimemanytime]

>>Police say they know of human rights concerns but want to make London safer"

Alrighty then, just wanted to make sure that they know of human rights concerns.