browsers
Firefox
messengers
Jappix - Thunderbird
search
Duckduckgo - Quaero - Scroogle
servers
all2all - domaine public - Telekommunisten
networks
Appleseed - Crabgrass - Diaspora - elgg - OneSocialWeb - pip.io
microblog
identi.ca
RELATED SITES
Ada Lovelace Institute - AI Now - Algorithm Watch - Algorithmic Justice League - AlgoTransparency - Atlas of Surveillance - Big Brother Watch - Citizen Lab - Conspiracy Watch - Constantvzw - controle-tes-donnees.net - Data Detox Kit - Digital Freedom Fund - Domaine Public - Do Not Track Electronic Frontier Foundation - europe-v-facebook - Fight for the Future - Forbidden Stories - Gender Shades - Google Spleen - greatfire.org - Guard//Int - hiljade.kamera.rs - Homo Digitalis - Human Rights Watch - Inside Google - Inside Airbnb - Liberties - LobbyPlag - Make Amazon Pay - Manifest-No - Ministry of Privacy - More Perfect Union - myshadow.org - Naked Citizens - Ni pigeons, ni espions - No-CCTV - Non à l’Etat fouineur - Nothing to Hide - noyb - NURPA - Online Nudity Survey - Open Rights Group - Ordinateurs de Vote - Pixel de tracking - Police spies out of lives - Prism Break - Privacy.net - Privacy International - Privacy Project - La Quadrature du Net - Radical AI Project - Reset the Net - Save the Internet - Souriez vous êtes filmés - Sous surveillance - Spyfiles - StateWatch - Stop Amazon - Stop Data Retention - Stop Killer Robots - Stop Spying - Stop The Cyborgs - Stop the Internet Blacklist ! - Stop the Spies - Stop Watching Us - Sur-ecoute.org - Technopolice - Tech Transparency Project - Transparency Toolkit - URME Surveillance - Watching Alibaba - Where are the Eyes ? - Who Targets Me ? - Wikifémia - Wikileaks
Four out of five people identified by the Metropolitan Police’s facial recognition technology as possible suspects are innocent, according to an independent report.
Researchers found that the controversial system is 81% inaccurate - meaning that, in the vast majority of cases, it flagged up faces to police when they were not on a wanted list.
The force maintains its technology only makes a mistake in one in 1,000 cases - but it uses a different measurement to arrive at this conclusion. (...)