UK privacy activist to appeal after facial recognition case fails UK News

#artificialintelligence

British privacy activist Ed Bridges is set to appeal a landmark ruling that endorses the "sinister" use of facial recognition technology by the police to hunt for suspects. In what is believed to be the world's first case of its kind, Bridges told the High Court in Wales that the local police breached his rights by scanning his face without consent. "This sinister technology undermines our privacy and I will continue to fight against its unlawful use to ensure our rights are protected and we are free from disproportionate government surveillance," Bridges said in a statement. But judges said the police's use of facial recognition technology was lawful and legally justified. Civil rights group Liberty, which represented 36-year-old Bridges, said it would appeal the "disappointing" decision, while police chiefs said they understood the fears of the public.


Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump, McCabe and the FBI -- It's March Madness Washington-style

FOX News

Why was Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe really fired? Judge Andrew Napolitano cuts through the confusion and explains what really happened. For the past few days, the nation's media and political class have been fixated on the firing of the No. 2 person in the FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe became embroiled in the investigation of President Donald Trump because of his alleged approval of the use of a political dossier, written about Trump and paid for by the Democrats and not entirely substantiated, as a basis to secure a search warrant for surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser who once boasted that he worked for the Kremlin at the same time that he was advising candidate Trump. The dossier itself and whatever was learned from the surveillance formed the basis for commencing the investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia by the Obama Department of Justice, which is now being run by special counsel Robert Mueller and has been expanded into other areas.


Police use of facial recognition is legal, Cardiff high court rules

The Guardian

Police use of automatic facial recognition technology to search for people in crowds is lawful, the high court in Cardiff has ruled. Although the mass surveillance system interferes with the privacy rights of those scanned by security cameras, a judge has concluded, it is not illegal. The legal challenge was brought by Ed Bridges, a former Liberal Democrat councillor from Cardiff, who noticed the cameras when he went out to buy a lunchtime sandwich. He was supported by the human rights organisation Liberty. Bridges said he was distressed by police use of the technology, which he believes captured his image while out shopping and later at a peaceful protest against the arms trade.


Office worker launches UK's first police facial recognition legal action

The Guardian

An office worker who believes his image was captured by facial recognition cameras when he popped out for a sandwich in his lunch break has launched a groundbreaking legal battle against the use of the technology. Supported by the campaign group Liberty, Ed Bridges, from Cardiff, raised money through crowdfunding to pursue the action, claiming the suspected use of the technology on him by South Wales police was an unlawful violation of privacy. Bridges, 36, claims he was distressed by the apparent use of the technology and is also arguing during a three-day hearing at Cardiff civil justice and family centre that it breaches data protection and equality laws. Facial recognition technology maps faces in a crowd and then compares them to a watchlist of images, which can include suspects, missing people and persons of interest to the police. The cameras scan faces in large crowds in public places such as streets, shopping centres, football crowds and music events such as the Notting Hill carnival.


Judge Andrew Napolitano: What if the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be anti-democratic?

FOX News

Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains how Judge Brett Kavanaugh became Justice Brett Kavanaugh even though he has a controversial view of the Fourth Amendment. What if the whole purpose of an independent judiciary is to be anti-democratic? What if its job is to disregard politics? What if its duty is to preserve the liberties of the minority -- even a minority of one -- from the tyranny of the majority? What if that tyranny can come from unjust laws or a just law's unjust enforcement?