A chara, – You reported that gardaí are refusing to carry State-issued GPS-enabled radios (“Gardaí leaving GPS radios behind amid ‘big brother’ fears”, News, May 29th).
They say they are worried that the GPS data is insecure and may be accessed by unauthorised people. They also worry that once this data is available to other gardaí, it may be used for other than the stated purposes.
This week you report that gardaí will be allowed use facial recognition technology to identify members of the public as they walk down the street, in real time (News, June 2nd).
They have no concerns about the security of this data, or the uses to which it may be put. – Is mise,
It is now an emergency. Bold action is needed: A Dublin principal on the capital’s teacher shortage
I felt an urge to ‘scroll’ past some living people. My online and offline lives had blurred
How your tongue and gait can give important clues as to your overall health
Pilita Clark: How to say ‘no’ at work and have no regrets
RAY CUNNINGHAM,
Walkinstown,
Dublin 12.
Sir, – While the words “surveillance” and “technology” in combination inevitably evoke associations with Orwell, it is difficult to imagine that we can actually prevent developments in this area. As a group of academic lawyers raise important considerations about facial recognition technology (FRT) and proposed legislation thereon, (Letters, July 2nd), it’s worth reflecting on the rate at which legislation is created in comparison to advances in computing.
Video surveillance is a given in petrol stations, many public buildings and on many of our streets. Domestic security cameras adorn perfectly normal houses.
The current use of this footage is rarely questioned. It often crops up on television programs where, following a crime, members of the public are asked to identify a perpetrator. This type of material is broadcast to large audiences, with, presumably, the chance of many individuals being inappropriately reported if they resemble the offender. When outsourced to the general public, we seem to have no real reservations about the practice. This seems remarkable, and rather inconsistent. People are far more likely to retain a suspicion of someone merely resembling a criminal than computers are.
It is also worth considering that various quotidian processes could be expedited by FRT. Admission to concerts and sports grounds, airports and workplaces could be made seamless by electronic recognition, increasing the flow. Ticket touting and reselling could be eliminated. Home security systems would be far more effective. It is perhaps possible to imagine a monitor that not only recognises you, but might subsequently inform you that a mole on your face has changed and warrants attention.
Ultimately though, Orwell himself was probably wrong in predicting how reticent people would be about their data. Few people hide from Telescreens as Winston Smith did. In fact we already seem happy to use FRT to activate our phones and make electronic payments. Meanwhile, when using our devices we share information fairly liberally.
Legislation in Ireland proceeds slowly, with delays of years in enacting various Bills. Whether we can use such a slow approach to influence uptake of FRT is hard to know. I’d imagine that in a decade or two – as long as it seems to require us to implement legal changes – it may be almost impossible to purchase security cameras without the ability to recognise individuals.
Global superpowers will demand and manufacture them in large numbers, and consequently our misgivings, ethics and legislation will likely be superseded by practicality. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.