From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

People in London will all be in one big jail!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_haVCMrX4U

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:20:21 +0000, User 7of9 <nobody@none.invalid>
wrote:

People in London will all be in one big jail!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_haVCMrX4U

Good. Slam the crooks up one big jail and throw away the key.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Fri, 03 Jul 2026 21:53:25 +0100 Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote:

Good. Slam the crooks up one big jail and throw away the key.

Coming to your town/city soon! lol

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On 7/4/2026 3:20 AM, User 7of9 wrote:

People in London will all be in one big jail!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_haVCMrX4U

Please go alt.conspiracy !! Your video
and message are both irrelevant to

alt.comp.os.windows-11
alt.comp.os.windows-10
alt.comp.freeware
misc.phone.mobile.iphone


I dunno alt.privacy.anon-server!!
Is it just a junk yard like
alt.dev.null
and
comp.lang.literate
??
--

@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

In article <20260703192021.83cab79890ea2e7e2e7949c1@dizum.com>, nobody@none.invalid says...

People in London will all be in one big jail!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_haVCMrX4U

This is something I know about, as I work closely with our local police
in North East London.

Yes, it's reasonable to have some concerns about a technology like this.
The sort of society we want won't be tracking ordinary citizens as they
go about their daily lives. But we do want to stop criminals messing up
those daily lives.

The key distinction between "Big Brother State" and "reasonable
vigilance" is the issue of how you get on a 'watchlist'. If the cameras
are 'harvesting' images and saving them, that would go beyond what the
vast majority of British people would want, or tolerate. But that's not what's happening here.

The cameras do recognise what appear to be faces, capture images of them
(most likely in RAM rather than persistant storage) and scan them
against a pre-existing watchlist, which will have images of people
already wanted (e.g. people wanted for recall to prison for breaching
license conditions).

If a match is suggested, the image captured is then stored, and sent
with the watchlist image it potentially matches, to a nearby police
officer. If he/she is satisfied there's a likely match, he/she will
speak to the individual concerned to establish identity, using existing
legal powers to "stop and account". The system plays no further part in
this.

If a match is not found, or is rejected by the officer, it is discarded
and deleted if it has been temporarily stored - it is of no use to the
police at this point. I'm not sure if images which generate verified
matches are stored - but once an officer has verified identity they
aren't likely to be of any significance (I'll ask one day!). Compare
that with routine CCTV, where your image may be stored for days, weeks
or years.

The system works well, and usually generates a number of arrests of
people who are will necessarily be already wanted - or their image would
not be in the watchlist.

The systems are made very conspicuous, with signs on nearby streets
warning of their (temporary) presence - personally I think that's
unnecessary.

The system is functionally equivalent to a police officer happening to recognise someone from a mugshot seen inside the police station - no
more,no less.

Now I'm sure Joe Conspiracy will be on here mumbling something about how
the vaccinations turn us all into transgender as soon as the 5g is
switched on, but those of less febrile disposition can learn more about
the system here:

https://www.met.police.uk/police-forces/metropolitan-police/areas/about- us/about-the-met/facial-recognition-technology/

For reference, I chair a local panel representing the views of residents
to the Metropolitan Police, and have done for the last 25 years. It's
right to ask searching questions about things like this, but it's also
right to listen to the answers.
--
--
Phil, London
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 12:13:01 +0100
Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> wrote:

In article <20260703192021.83cab79890ea2e7e2e7949c1@dizum.com>, nobody@none.invalid says...

People in London will all be in one big jail!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_haVCMrX4U

[Sensible reply omitted]


note the xposts that came from a throwaway dizum account with a bare
youtube link.

fu to the privacy ng only
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> wrote:

In article <20260703192021.83cab79890ea2e7e2e7949c1@dizum.com>, nobody@none.invalid says...

People in London will all be in one big jail!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_haVCMrX4U

This is something I know about, as I work closely with our local police
in North East London.

Yes, it's reasonable to have some concerns about a technology like this. The sort of society we want won't be tracking ordinary citizens as they
go about their daily lives. But we do want to stop criminals messing up those daily lives.

The key distinction between "Big Brother State" and "reasonable
vigilance" is the issue of how you get on a 'watchlist'. If the cameras
are 'harvesting' images and saving them, that would go beyond what the
vast majority of British people would want, or tolerate. But that's not what's happening here.

The cameras do recognise what appear to be faces, capture images of them (most likely in RAM rather than persistant storage) and scan them
against a pre-existing watchlist, which will have images of people
already wanted (e.g. people wanted for recall to prison for breaching license conditions).

If a match is suggested, the image captured is then stored, and sent
with the watchlist image it potentially matches, to a nearby police
officer. If he/she is satisfied there's a likely match, he/she will
speak to the individual concerned to establish identity, using existing legal powers to "stop and account". The system plays no further part in this.

If a match is not found, or is rejected by the officer, it is discarded
and deleted if it has been temporarily stored - it is of no use to the police at this point. I'm not sure if images which generate verified matches are stored - but once an officer has verified identity they
aren't likely to be of any significance (I'll ask one day!). Compare
that with routine CCTV, where your image may be stored for days, weeks
or years.

The system works well, and usually generates a number of arrests of
people who are will necessarily be already wanted - or their image would
not be in the watchlist.

Does it work well, though? As far as I an aware, no scientific studies have been done on the actual system using real-world scenarios. The underlying technology does work under controlled conditions, but we do know it is very susceptible to bias - both positive and negative - that exists in training data.

This also ignores the growing "blind spot" that any automated system makes
and AI exacerbates. These systems are designed to find those the police are aware about and unintentionally, but exaggerate, hiding those they aren't.

Given we know that the Met is "institutionally racist" you can guarantee
that the system will be very accurate at matching black and asian persons
of interest whilst also making many false positives. This is because that population are much more likely to end up in databases. White POIs will be
able to fly under the radar.

The systems are made very conspicuous, with signs on nearby streets
warning of their (temporary) presence - personally I think that's unnecessary.

All it does is encourage youths in hoodies and balaclavas. Reducing effectiveness of policing in the long term.

The system is functionally equivalent to a police officer happening to recognise someone from a mugshot seen inside the police station - no
more,no less.

Which we know that is very, very bad. Bundling that into AI continues the badness.

Now I'm sure Joe Conspiracy will be on here mumbling something about how
the vaccinations turn us all into transgender as soon as the 5g is
switched on,

Now let's not conflate genuine and well-reasoned concern with crackpot conspiracy theories. They are far from equivalent. Dismissing both on the
same terms is disingenuous.

but those of less febrile disposition can learn more about
the system here:

https://www.met.police.uk/police-forces/metropolitan-police/areas/about- us/about-the-met/facial-recognition-technology/

For reference, I chair a local panel representing the views of residents
to the Metropolitan Police, and have done for the last 25 years. It's
right to ask searching questions about things like this, but it's also
right to listen to the answers.

When the answers are dismissive and don't actually address the questions
isa good reason why they aren't going away.

Being a chair representing the public for *25 years* sounds like you're institutionalised and you're less a member of the public then a member of
the police. Your comment regarding signage being unnecessary points to
this.




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

In article <112d6hh$ullg$1@dont-email.me>, ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

Being a chair representing the public for *25 years* sounds like you're >institutionalised and you're less a member of the public then a member of
the police. Your comment regarding signage being unnecessary points to
this.

My role is two-fold. Firstly (and foremost) I have to facilitate
questions and challenges from the local community to the police.
Secondly, given the widespread lack of understanding of how the police operates (something you've demonstrated above) it's also useful if I communicate what I've learned back into the community.

The relationship between the police (most police, most places) and
ethnic and other minorities is an unsolved problem. In London, Stop and Search (and yes, I've been stopped and searched) focuses particularly on
knife crime, and it's young black men who are overwhelmingly the most
likely victims of knife crime. Generations of black people have grown
up with a not-unreasonable distrust of the police, and reforms in the
police have happened a lot faster than changes in that distrust. An
Inspector told me that he has real trouble getting younger recruits to
carry out the stops that they need to be doing because they don't want
to be thought racist. Meanwhile young black men continue to be affected disproportinately by knife crime. Some believe that these people arm themselves because they don't trust the police to protect them - which
becomes a vicious circle.

I can't say whether there is any bias in the processes which lead to
someone's likeness being entered into a watchlist, but the Guardian
reported this:

"and it was ?statistically significantly more likely to correctly
identify black participants than participants from other ethnic groups?. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2026/may/03/how- does-live-facial-recognition-work-and-how-many-uk-police-forces-use-it

If you'e so interested in what the police is doing, and you live in
London (presumably there are similar options in other UK regions) then
find out about your local ward panel (via the Met website). Go and ask
all the searching questions you like. You might learn something - and
you might also find your local team open to ideas.

For non-UK folk, the UK has a singular model of "policing by consent".
In the UK, the police are not agencies of government but an independent service expected to uphold the law. In London the Met is supervised by
the (London) Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, led by a Deputy
Mayor with that portfolio title. The Commissioner is also accoountable
to the Home Secretary, but both are answerable to the courts. Police
officers are civilians in that they are non-military, overwhelmingly
unarmed, and the titles of ranks (other than Sergeant) were consciously
chosen to be non-military.

While there are inevitably "ripples" in crime, the overwhelming trend
over decades has been for crime of all kinds (except fraud) to decline
over time. If you doubt this, as any major AI research tool a relevant question.

Can we get back to Windows 11 now?
--
--
Phil, London
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> wrote:

My role is two-fold.

Yes.

No. 1 Do as you're told.

No. 2 Keep licking boots.

You have no brain and can't think for yourself.

This is not about watching people, it's conditioning and staying in control.

By Christmas...

London = Beijing!

FACT!!!

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server


Is there an Usenet newsgroup for image recognition?

Both hardware and software? Or split into 2 to avoid
cross-posting, which attracts trolling and quarrels?

QUARRELE+!uuc(t|Uo2o)t++*!>N+Uoeiu-i*-Roa+ <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E-%E6%BC%A2%E8%AA%9E-%E7%B9%81%E9%AB%94/quarrel>

TROLLINGE+!uuc(t|Uo2o)t++*!>N+Uoeiu-i*-Roa+ <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E-%E6%BC%A2%E8%AA%9E-%E7%B9%81%E9%AB%94/trolling>

On 7/4/2026 3:20 AM, User 7of9 wrote:

People in London will all be in one big jail!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_haVCMrX4U

--

@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On 7/4/2026 3:20 AM, User 7of9 wrote:

People in London will all be in one big jail!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_haVCMrX4U

Please go alt.conspiracy !! Your video
and message are both irrelevant to

alt.comp.os.windows-11
alt.comp.os.windows-10
alt.comp.freeware
misc.phone.mobile.iphone


I dunno alt.privacy.anon-server!!
Is it just a junk yard like
alt.dev.null
and
comp.lang.literate
??
--

@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

I use to have to fly frequently in my job. After 911, I had a random
search of my baggage. There was an alarm clock in my bag that had a
glow in the dark phosphorus dial. The bomb sniffer alerted on it. Pphosphorus is sometimes used in explosives. I explained to the head
dumb ass security guy that it had to be the clock dial that was setting
off the alarm. He kept saying no, no, no, but finally a black girl
that was scanning said that it had to be the clock dial. He finally
agreed that it must be the dial. Nevertheless, I was put on a watch
list and had to go through 4 security checks before I could get on a
plane from that time onward. So only one suspicious event with the
Btitish camera system and you too will probably be a criminal suspect
the rest of your life.
I suggest you start wearing identity masking sun glasses.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

On 7/13/2026 11:57 PM, Fritz Wuehler wrote:

There was an alarm clock in my bag that had a
glow in the dark phosphorus dial. The bomb
sniffer alerted on it. Pphosphorus is sometimes
used in explosives. I explained to the head
dumb ass security guy that it had to be the
clock dial ...
I suggest you start wearing identity masking
sun glasses.

You don't wear "masking sun-glasses" to get
pass airport security! :)
--

@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
The game is afoot... Meow...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

In article
<47f86ea5347e18b87f196504761bb8cb@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, fritz@spamexpire-202607.rodent.frell.theremailer.net says...

So only one suspicious event with the
Btitish camera system and you too will probably be a criminal suspect
the rest of your life.

There's something akin to the truth in that. But you have to do
something significant enough to be on the "persons of interest" list, so
a (human) decision is made to put your mugshot on the system's
watchlist.

I agree that the criteria for adding someone to the watchlist are an
important issue, but this system is "spotting" people already on a
watchlist rather than harvesting faces to build one.

And if you are 'matched', and the officer on the ground agrees it's a potential match, you'll be spoken to, and maybe asked to identify
yourself - exactly the same as if the officer had recognised you
him/herself from a mugshot on the station board. And the usual process
will follow: arrest (if necessary), interview with legal representative present, charging (if the Crow Prosecution Service agrees the evidence
is there) and then (after what's currently a lengthy wait) a trial.

I was at a police meeting last night, and at the last deployment in our
high street there were 13 arrests of people confirmed to be 'wanted'.
--
--
Phil, London
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> wrote:

In article
<47f86ea5347e18b87f196504761bb8cb@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, fritz@spamexpire-202607.rodent.frell.theremailer.net says...

So only one suspicious event with the
Btitish camera system and you too will probably be a criminal suspect
the rest of your life.

There's something akin to the truth in that. But you have to do
something significant enough to be on the "persons of interest" list, so
a (human) decision is made to put your mugshot on the system's
watchlist.

Not really. A mistake like Fritz can be enough and trying to undo can be a complete nightmare. The film Brazil, although a satire, is very close to
the truth where a typo in a central database turns an innocent citizen to
an instant terrorist threat.

I agree that the criteria for adding someone to the watchlist are an important issue, but this system is "spotting" people already on a
watchlist rather than harvesting faces to build one.

And if you are 'matched', and the officer on the ground agrees it's a potential match, you'll be spoken to, and maybe asked to identify
yourself - exactly the same as if the officer had recognised you
him/herself from a mugshot on the station board. And the usual process
will follow: arrest (if necessary), interview with legal representative present, charging (if the Crow Prosecution Service agrees the evidence
is there) and then (after what's currently a lengthy wait) a trial.

It would be extremely enlightening for everyone involved if a random
selection of the people commissioning these system were to spend 24 hrs in
the shoes of someone who has been misidentified by the system.

I was at a police meeting last night, and at the last deployment in our
high street there were 13 arrests of people confirmed to be 'wanted'.

Incomplete information. How many people were matched? How many stopped? How many were a case of misidentification?

And the big one - that is practically unknowable - how many potential
matches were missed?

Plus, there's the wider question of deployment of police resources. Is it
the best use of police time to constantly respond to AI flags? Does it
actually reduce persistent crime or just move it to other places?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

In article <11361na$kot7$1@dont-email.me>, ithinkiam@gmail.com says...

I was at a police meeting last night, and at the last deployment in our
high street there were 13 arrests of people confirmed to be 'wanted'.

Incomplete information. How many people were matched? How many stopped? How >many were a case of misidentification?

And the big one - that is practically unknowable - how many potential
matches were missed?

Plus, there's the wider question of deployment of police resources. Is it
the best use of police time to constantly respond to AI flags? Does it >actually reduce persistent crime or just move it to other places?

Those are good questions. At the meeting it was agreed that when the
van running this system is in my patch again I'll be invited inside to
talk to the operators, and those figures on rates of matching, stopping
and confirmation will be interesting - though they don't change the
basic story. Ultimately it comes down to a human officer assessing if
the person they've been alerted to speak to is actually a known "person
of interest".

I agree it's unknowable how many potential matches ("False Negatives")
are missed.

As for police resources, an arrest is seen as a postive thing (as at
least it starts an investigative process which may or may not lead to a charge) and 13 arrests in an afternoon is a very high figure. Had any
of those arrests been inappropriate I'd have been told - I've known my
local officers for years. Remember a facial match isn't "evidence" of anything - it's simply directing police attention to someone who may or
may not turn out to be a known "person of interest". And yes, it's how
you get to be "known" as a "person of interest" which is the crucial
civil liberties issue.

The Met police have some officers who've become known as "super-
recognisers" because they have an ability to remember mugshots sometimes
for years and recognise the people depicted in new contexts. This
automated system is the exact equivalent of that. Being recognised
isn't a crime. Being recognised if you're already a suspect isn't a
crime, but it might mean you end up held to account for whatever it is
you may have done.
--
--
Phil, London
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> writes:

In article
<47f86ea5347e18b87f196504761bb8cb@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, fritz@spamexpire-202607.rodent.frell.theremailer.net says...

So only one suspicious event with the
Btitish camera system and you too will probably be a criminal suspect
the rest of your life.

There's something akin to the truth in that. But you have to do
something significant enough to be on the "persons of interest" list,

Like post a tweet, for example? Or retweet someone else's tweet?

so
a (human) decision is made to put your mugshot on the system's
watchlist.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2