23-05-2021, 01:29 AM
1
Who needs DNA when a camera will suffice?
Read this story in which a drugs dealer was identified by using an analysis of fingerprints which they got from a photograph.Does this mean that all photos out there on the cloud are now available to identify potential offenders?
Is this the start of the end of any privacy and the associated rights? Will the authorities end up using any photo they find to create a database of us all?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/carl-stewa...175835893.html
23-05-2021, 07:57 AM
3
Re: Who needs DNA when a camera will suffice?
Originally Posted by Muddy
->
They probably have already as long as you are not a drug dealer it’s doesn’t really matter
I rather think you misunderstand how things work.
Everything is recorded.
Unless there is a specific reason, nothing is looked at by humans.
Facial Recognition is all done by AI, it flags things up but the real evidence has to be found.
AI identification is not accepted as proof by the Courts, you need more.
23-05-2021, 08:19 AM
4
Re: Who needs DNA when a camera will suffice?
I think its because he used a encrypted device, and that brought the attention to the police. (Probably wondering why cheese was so fascinating!) And yes, they can identify you with all sorts of software analysis these days. I agree with you though- just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should.
23-05-2021, 10:20 AM
6
Re: Who needs DNA when a camera will suffice?
Originally Posted by The Artful Todger
->
If a thing can be done rest assured it will be done.
Really?
We could have protected our Borders for years.
We have not.
Pritti has said it will be 2025 before we can count people in and out.
23-05-2021, 11:02 AM
7
Re: Who needs DNA when a camera will suffice?
I doubt that a single piece of evidence such as a photo' of someone's hands can result in a conviction. There must be corroborating evidence.The gentleman concerned in this case must have been a suspect for the police to go looking for evidence. Finding fingerprints on something, and comparing it with a photo' of someone's fingerprints would have been enough to obtain a warrant to detain said gentleman.
His prints would then have been taken from his hands and compared with those at a crime scene or items seized.
The photo' was a lead, something to direct the police in a certain direction. On its own I doubt it would have stood up to scrutiny in court.
23-05-2021, 11:51 AM
8
Re: Who needs DNA when a camera will suffice?
Originally Posted by Fruitcake
->
I doubt that a single piece of evidence such as a photo' of someone's hands can result in a conviction. There must be corroborating evidence.The gentleman concerned in this case must have been a suspect for the police to go looking for evidence. Finding fingerprints on something, and comparing it with a photo' of someone's fingerprints would have been enough to obtain a warrant to detain said gentleman.
His prints would then have been taken from his hands and compared with those at a crime scene or items seized.
The photo' was a lead, something to direct the police in a certain direction. On its own I doubt it would have stood up to scrutiny in court.
It's more the fact that information which is freely available somewhere in the cloud is used in their search, and moreover that this is only useful if they have some kind of database to connect a photo (in this case of fingerprints) to a person.
Are we all already on a database somewhere in terms of this kind of data being held?
23-05-2021, 11:55 AM
9
Re: Who needs DNA when a camera will suffice?
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
HiReally?
We could have protected our Borders for years.
We have not.
Pritti has said it will be 2025 before we can count people in and out.
|
|
