fix the homelessness problem or trans rights issues or the home heating problem or improve the looks of the cities or fix the wealth gap or fix NHS or lessen sexism or improve public schools or lower emissions or improve nuclear power or reduce coal or subsidise renewables or improve privacy or fix all the issues created by the UK government over the last 30 years or help fix problems caused by colonisation in ireland or do literally anything useful for once? nah, too expensive.
a £230,000,000 mass surveillance program akin to that of russia or the ccp? of course we can!
England’s already the snooping capital of the west, isn’t it?
It seems that every time a new privacy-invading technology comes floating down the pike, England just instantly adopts it. They don’t even hesitate -it’s like, “Ooh… new survellance technology? I’ll take that one and that one and that one and… you know what? Just give me the lot!”
And every time, I cynically reflect on the fact that Orwell was English.
Campaigners, experts and peers say the U.K. is fast becoming an outlier among democracies in the pace at which it is adopting live facial recognition (LFR) technology in the absence of firm legal underpinnings.
In contrast, the issue has rarely made headlines in the U.K. — despite Prime Minister Rishi Sunak seeking to position the country as a global leader in AI governance.
Civil society groups warn that facial recognition technology, particularly in its live form, is invasive, imperfect and risks exacerbating the same sort of structural issues in community policing that have marred policies like “stop and search.”
Under the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, the government is proposing to abolish the position of surveillance camera commissioner, a role responsible for encouraging compliance with one of the few statutory codes that does mention LFR.
The Home Office, however, argues that a combination of common law policing powers, non-binding guidance, and human rights, data protection, and equalities legislation forms a “comprehensive legal framework” with “appropriate safeguards.”
“The U.K. is increasingly an outlier in the democratic world in taking this approach, with European countries, the EU, U.S. states and cities banning or severely restricting law enforcement use of LFR.”
The original article contains 1,386 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 86%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !privacyguides@lemmy.one
In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We’ve tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the “official” Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other “Privacy Guides” communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
No soliciting engagement: Don’t ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
Don’t repost topics which have already been covered here.
News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don’t abuse our community’s willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.
It already is?
deleted by creator
fix the homelessness problem or trans rights issues or the home heating problem or improve the looks of the cities or fix the wealth gap or fix NHS or lessen sexism or improve public schools or lower emissions or improve nuclear power or reduce coal or subsidise renewables or improve privacy or fix all the issues created by the UK government over the last 30 years or help fix problems caused by colonisation in ireland or do literally anything useful for once? nah, too expensive.
a £230,000,000 mass surveillance program akin to that of russia or the ccp? of course we can!
See that’s your problem you used common sense
England’s already the snooping capital of the west, isn’t it?
It seems that every time a new privacy-invading technology comes floating down the pike, England just instantly adopts it. They don’t even hesitate -it’s like, “Ooh… new survellance technology? I’ll take that one and that one and that one and… you know what? Just give me the lot!”
And every time, I cynically reflect on the fact that Orwell was English.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Campaigners, experts and peers say the U.K. is fast becoming an outlier among democracies in the pace at which it is adopting live facial recognition (LFR) technology in the absence of firm legal underpinnings.
In contrast, the issue has rarely made headlines in the U.K. — despite Prime Minister Rishi Sunak seeking to position the country as a global leader in AI governance.
Civil society groups warn that facial recognition technology, particularly in its live form, is invasive, imperfect and risks exacerbating the same sort of structural issues in community policing that have marred policies like “stop and search.”
Under the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, the government is proposing to abolish the position of surveillance camera commissioner, a role responsible for encouraging compliance with one of the few statutory codes that does mention LFR.
The Home Office, however, argues that a combination of common law policing powers, non-binding guidance, and human rights, data protection, and equalities legislation forms a “comprehensive legal framework” with “appropriate safeguards.”
“The U.K. is increasingly an outlier in the democratic world in taking this approach, with European countries, the EU, U.S. states and cities banning or severely restricting law enforcement use of LFR.”
The original article contains 1,386 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 86%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!