Re:Singapore to test facial recognition on lampposts, stokin...
by Hnrobert42 on Friday November 16, 2018 @01:26PM
(#18470743)
1. The correlation between surveillance increase and crime decrease does not prove causation.
2. As noted in the article video survelliance is not the same as facial recognition. The latter is far more powerful.
Re:Singapore to test facial recognition on lampposts, stokin...
by ams6110 on Friday November 16, 2018 @12:07PM
(#18470003)
Technology to produce fairly convincing fake videos is already mainstream, and will only get better. For how much longer will video "evidence" be considered proof of anything?
Re:Singapore to test facial recognition on lampposts, stokin...
by tim333 on Friday November 16, 2018 @12:16PM
(#18470069)
I guess most evidence can be tampered. A lot of CCTV footage is no good as evidence because it's too fuzzy but if you can figure who did it then you can get other kinds of evidence, stolen goods etc.
I'm sure the Russians doing the Sailsbury attacks didn't want to be tracked by cameras but they were. If top Russian agents can be then probably most other people can be too. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/salisbury-novich...
>the ultimate aim of these ubiquitous surveillance systems isn't really reducing crime, but social engineering
In the UK we've had fairly ubiquitous surveillance systems for a while. In practice the uses have been reducing crime and doing people for minor traffic offences, including me - they uploaded a nice video of me turning right in spite of a no right turn sign, rather to my surprise. I've noticed no social engineering - maybe that's to come?