> The UK is quickly deploying surveillance state technology that people once decried China for.
they always had been or at least tried, for decades by now, the only thing which had been holding them back was the EU frequently being like "no wtf UK, that is against human rights, EU law, etc."
> Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?
no, and it also has a long track record of not only marginally improving your crime statistics. And especially stuff like facial recognition vans are most times not used to protect citizens but to create lists for who attended demos and similar. Which is most useful for suppressing/harassing your citizens instead of protecting them.
No, it is more like UK is now the new surveillance supermarket for EU: implementing what “works” for UK - trusted and applied technology.
And also the excuse included: “not China”, but even this doesn’t come as cause for concern anymore.
Have a look at the latest US “country report on human rights practices 2025”. Germany is flagged as unsafe so to say.
It is as you can only hope that the NSA has some way to spy on your data when EU gets more on more anti privacy and data protection means EU only storage is mandatory.
Anything coming out of a US government institution today is not trustworthy. Not sure why you'd reference the 2025 report. It's a laugh and a half that the country deploying the national guard in their own capital and putting the capital's police under federal government control is saying Germany is unsafe. The country that's rounding up immigrants and even US citizens to be deported to random countries.
Please. Stop falling for the right-wing propaganda.
We don't need national guard in the capitol deployed. Completely fabricated claim that crime is out of control. Absolutely a move to gain power and create internal enemies to fight while a certain list of clients is being much discussed.
the murder rate in American cities is out of control. Maybe Americans are blind to this, but there are 274 murders in DC alone in 2023. In ALL of Germany, there were something like 600 murders in 2023. DC has 730,000 people living there. Germany has 83 million people. What do you mean that DC doesnt have a crisis going on? The homicide rate is 4,500% higher than Germany, lol.
How can geemany be considered unsafe to the average american? The homicide and violent crime rate in the US is 10x higher than germany, even in the quiet and posh parts of the USA the murder rate is insanely high compared to anywhere in germany.
Nonsense. The murder rate in most of the USA is similar to Germany. My small city has literally zero murders most years. The vast majority of violent crime happens in few cities such as St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington DC. And then it's only in a handful of neighborhoods within those cities. We should fix those places but basic safety isn't something that most Americans have to worry about.
the EU has literally banned facial recognition by law enforcement across the entire bloc.
HN has terrible EU Derangement Syndrome:
any time its mentioned here, suddenly there are tens of people lining up to blindly shit on it, usually for laws it hasn't actually passed, or literal anti-truths like your comment, despite the fact that it is consistently passing the best tech-focused laws of any major governmental body anywhere, and the proposed laws that everyone repeatedly loses their minds over have never once actually come to pass. even when they released the DMA and DSA, possibly the two most HN-friendly pieces of legislation of all time, half the comments were attempts at criticism, basically seemingly because people here just love to hate the EU, sans facts
I edited mine to add additional observation, leaving the central focus the same. your edit entirely changed the meaning of your comment, changing the meaning of my reply
They have outlawed _live_ facial recognition in public places. And with exemptions such as e.g. terrorism, which I'm guessing is what UK is going to go for with protesters.
my friend, I'm sorry but this is simply a factual bridge too far. the EU has quite specifically brought out wide-ranging laws heavily restricting the very thing the UK is doing, plus a load of other very positive restrictions on the use of AI and biometrics in general, and yet your conclusion is that they're on the same path? it's like if I say I'm never going to eat meat except rare unavoidable occasions, and you think I'm en route to becoming the liver king. just admit you like criticising the EU and be done with it
We have another token legislation from EU forbidding private parties to most anything, and carefully inserting loopholes for authorities and government to do as they please.
True, the restrictions on live facial recognition is a bit more severe for law enforcement than usual.
But:
A. It's not something most people here care about a lot. Law enforcement are still allowed to use AI to create a file on every citizen.
B. It gives them political points, because now people less-in-the-know will think that they are actually protecting privacy, which is again, not true.
well thank fuck for that! besides financial self-interest, why would you want private parties doing anything with AI and biometrics whatsoever? if anyone is to at all, it should be publicly accountable bodies that aren't operating based on a profit motive, but really it should be none at all!
>It gives them political points, because now people less-in-the-know will think that they are actually protecting privacy, which is again, not true.
this entire sentence stinks of "I just don't like the EU and I'm just going to criticise it no matter what". people in the know? people who have read the law specifically stating that facial recognition can only be used in severe, clearly-defined cases, with judicial approval, in highly time-limited windows? people who've read that if it is to be used post-hoc, it has to have judicial authorisation linked to a criminal offence. and you're saying that this in no way protects privacy?
the UK is rolling out AI police vans all over the country to try and recognise people they have on lists. no judicial approval is required, there's no time-limit, and as far as I'm aware there's no restriction on what crimes it's used for either. private companies are allowed to use it, obviously equally with no judicial approval
essentially mate, I think you need to have a good look at whether your opinions here are coming from "I genuinely think the EU's legislation is an issue here" or "I don't like the idea of the EU in general and I'm going to criticise anything it does"
I don't get this attitude. Private parties are me and you. I have many interests and ideas, and now many of those have been forbidden for no discernible reason, while the government is still allowed to spy on us to their hearts content.
"Private parties" are _not_ me and you. _I_ can't begin to fathom how you come to believe you are, unless you consider yourself a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, held back from success only by all this legislative overreach.
"Private parties" are mighty multinational enterprises with essentially limitless pockets, entities whose factual power and political influence rivals most governments. Countries all over the world have been struggling to restrain them for the past decade in order to keep their sovereignty.
What exact "interests and ideas" do you have that would involve the necessity for public facial recognition? Because I, for one, don't want my biometric data in your system without my explicit consent.
The beautifully named 32024R1689, aka AI Act, prohibits a lot of random stuff. It definitely makes many AI efforts into a legal minefield. It does not just cover live facial recognition in public spaces, which I personally could live without.
"Private parties" refer to non-governmental entities, such as individuals or businesses. You may be acting on a governments behalf, but I am not.
Private parties are quite literally me and you in addition to large multinational corporations. If you think large multinationals need to be restricted then just say that directly instead of putting forward nonsensical semantic arguments.
> I, for one, don't want my biometric data in your system without my explicit consent.
If it's a single individual watching (for example) the sidewalk in front of his house and not disseminating the data in any way then what does it matter? Where is the potential downside? There are plenty of neighborhoods with at least a few retirees sitting staring out the front window for multiple hours each day.
As far as I can tell in the vast majority of cases surveillance only becomes problematic when both ubiquitous and centralized.
Please stop telling people what stuff "reads like" until after you go over what they actually said. And never say something "reads like" anything akin to "you sound like a hater."
Or at least just say that straight instead of surrounding it with empty verbiage. The overwhelming proportion of people all over the world don't care about the EU until it does a horrible (or a good) thing, and then they care about the thing it did and why it might have done it. It's not their ex-boyfriend.
People are trying to figure out why it's run by crazy people now, and they blame this on the fact that it is largely an undemocratic organization run by extreme multi-generational elites with a quickly lowering opinion on human rights, freedom of speech and the importance of peace. This is not personal. The EU is not a person.
I vouched for this, because there is spirited discussion happening here.
Also, since the UK has now criminalized calling the Gaza situation a genocide under terrorism statutes, the camera vans make sense in driving by peaceful protestors and getting all their faces for arrest later.
For all the Chinese surveillance hatred I've seen over the years, what the UK is doing is loads worse.
It's a war, not a genocide. Gaza is under seige. Hamas should unconditionally surrender but they prefer to put their children in harm's way than to surrender.
Tell me, if this is a genocide, what has happened to all the Jews in Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan since 1950?
No, defense of Israel is the last stand of a people that has been slowly eradicated from their indigenous region for the last 80+ years.
Hamas simply needs to surrender in this round of the war they started. But they won't unless they control Jerusalem.
Whatever they were before, no reasonable person can consider hamas to be the government of Gaza. Or to be a credible military threat to anyone. They are a convenient excuse to continue the aggression.
FWIW, for much of the early months I would have agreed. Hamas was the de-facto government, and had an obligation to unconditionally surrender. Blending in with civilians can’t be a method to avoid military force.
You say that hamas is no "credible military threat" - may I beg you please reconsider this in light of the 1195 killed when they attacked on October 7? They're no world-class army, to be sure, but it's not like they have no teeth whatsoever...
you don't shoot children in the head and genitals in war.
you don't kill doctors and medical first responders in war.
you don't commit a policy of mass starvation against children while gaslighting us about it.
People like you need to be called out. its disgusting and I can't believe we're all still here putting up with it. the IDF is no better than hamas. they justs have bigger guns.
>Hamas should unconditionally surrender but they prefer to put their children in harm's way than to surrender.
"Surrender" means leaving their kids with more of the same until the next flashpoint. Israel has orchestrated a no win scenario, and some people forced into that place have decided they would prefer violence now instead of later.
>what has happened to all the Jews in Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan since 1950?
Some have been forcibly removed. Some of those countries also worked with the zionists to relocate those people willingly to palestinian land.
>Hamas simply needs to surrender in this round of the war they started. But they won't unless they control Jerusalem.
"Hamas wont stop until they are in a better position to defend palestinians" isnt the amazing argument you might think it is.
> "Hamas wont stop until they are in a better position to defend palestinians" isnt the amazing argument you might think it is.
Hamas has no interest in defending Palestinians much less peaceful coexistence [1]. Their primary goal is to conquer and destroy Israel for the glory of Islam.
> Ismail Haniyeh in 2020: He explained that Hamas rejects ceasefire agreements by which, “Gaza would become Singapore,” preferring to remain at war with Israel until a Palestinian state is established from the River to the Sea: “We cannot, in exchange for money or projects, give up Palestine and our weapons. We will not give up the resistance... We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea.”
Truth is that there was a population exchange between Jews and Arabs after the 1948 war between their nations similar to what happened between Greece and Turkey in 1924 and several other regions during the 20th century. It’s tragic but those peoples accepted it and now largely live in peace. I believe many Gazans desire peace with Israel [3].
However instead of accepting reality, Hamas official policy is the destruction of Israel and the Jews [2].
>Hamas has no interest in defending Palestinians much less peaceful coexistence [1]. Their primary goal is to conquer and destroy Israel for the glory of Islam.
Right, which is why I wouldnt ascribe to them the goal of creating a Palestinian state. They might say they want it, but it isnt really the result they are looking for. The comment I was responding to was making them look good.
>Truth is that there was a population exchange between Jews and Arabs after the 1948 war between their nations similar to what happened between Greece and Turkey in 1924 and several other regions during the 20th century. It’s tragic but those peoples accepted it and now largely live in peace. I believe many Gazans desire peace with Israel [3].
The majority of Gazans would be happy if Israel just respected their right to return. Israel could simply let all the gas out of the issue immediately. Send the settlers home, and let the victims of the nakba return to their land. I dont think anyone desires "peace" where peace is living in a giant open air prison subject to raids and interference from an external military.
>However instead of accepting reality, Hamas official policy is the destruction of Israel and the Jews [2].
Exactly. They perfectly mirror the zionist terrorists who fought for the establishment of Israel. And look where that got us. Israel being ruled and directed by those terrorists has created the current crisis. We cannot repeat that mistake and simply leave Hamas in charge of Palestine. But likewise the terrorist state of Israel must also be either reformed or replaced.
> The majority of Gazans would be happy if Israel just respected their right to return.
Sure and Greeks would love to have Constantinople back. Greece attacked Turkey to get Thrace back and failed. Most of the Greeks living there were expelled. Sucks but that’s war and conflict.
Yet we see that Greeks and Turks don’t suicide bomb each other daily to regain some lost historic sense of pride. They accepted their Diaspora, not kept them locked up as political pawns like the Arab countries did with Palestinians.
Statements like yours sound nice on the surface but are ignorant of practical realities and the messiness of the history.
Even by your own logic, after all, Israeli Jews are just exercising their “right of return” no?
> Israel could simply let all the gas out of the issue immediately. Send the settlers home, and let the victims of the nakba return to their land.
That would not work. You see what Hamas is willing and was able to do on Oct 7th. If Israel allowed that they’d likely be facing the same as Oct 7th continually.
The Arabs that remained after the Nakba are full Israeli citizens now. It’s not perfect but to my eyes living next to several Palestinian Israelis they have pretty good lives. Much better than in Jordan actually.
> They perfectly mirror the zionist terrorists who fought for the establishment of Israel. And look where that got us. Israel being ruled and directed by those terrorists has created the current crisis.
Atrocities were committed by both Arabs and Jews prior to 1948. Again you have a very slanted and inaccurate “white colonizers bad” of the history.
When two ethnicities begin fighting it’s very difficult for either side to remain docile. Naturally populations that once lived together will separate. I’m not justifying it, just pointing out the reality of the matter.
Even the British prior to 1948 proposed forced resettlement of Jews and Arabs in the region to reduce tensions and fighting. Both sides had terrorist elements. Your post minimizes and ignores that both sides were guilty.
Israel being formed just forced the issue and after all the surrounding Arab nations attacked them. Every other situation like that in recent history has had refugees leave or flee their homelands. Most have been allowed to resettle and make new lives, unlike the Palestinians.
Unlike the Palestinian governments, Israel has already given citizenship to remaining Arabs and proved they can live peacefully with their minorities. They grant the right to vote. They protect places of worship for all faiths. They’re not perfect but far better than how the Arab peoples and nations treat Jewish minorities pretty much anywhere in the Middle East.
I did a study abroad in Israel when they withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Most Israelis were supportive of it and removing illegal settlers in Gaza, yet it was a political battle against their own extremist elements. Yet despite doing that it only took a couple years before the rockets started coming from Gaza.
>Even by your own logic, after all, Israeli Jews are just exercising their “right of return” no?
No. There are surviving people with a clear right to return they were removed from. Its those people that Israel seeks to outlive by holding them in Gaza. Its happening now. That's not equivalent to some loose claim from a long time ago.
>That would not work. You see what Hamas is willing and was able to do on Oct 7th. If Israel allowed that they’d likely be facing the same as Oct 7th continually.
Lmao, if theres a fear that returned people would continue terrorism, the anger is coming from being held in an open air prison for decades. It should be a police matter, from a government that protects all citizens. Thats the only way to start to repair things.
>The Arabs that remained after the Nakba are full Israeli citizens now. It’s not perfect but to my eyes living next to several Palestinian Israelis they have pretty good lives. Much better than in Jordan actually.
Yes so the arabs that didnt let themselves get forced or ordered off their land retain some rights. That's not the amazing argument you might think it is.
>Unlike the Palestinian governments, Israel has already given citizenship to remaining Arabs and proved they can live peacefully with their minorities. They grant the right to vote. They protect places of worship for all faiths. They’re not perfect but far better than how the Arab peoples and nations treat Jewish minorities pretty much anywhere in the Middle East.
Yet you continually see them being forced off their land by settlers. If you have proven coexistence possible, you would only strengthen it by returning the refugees. If you want a 1 state solution, that state needs to demonstrate it is capable.
>Most Israelis were supportive of it and removing illegal settlers in Gaza, yet it was a political battle against their own extremist elements. Yet despite doing that it only took a couple years before the rockets started coming from Gaza
You need to understand that removing illegal settlers from gaza is like saying you stole someones house and gave them back the couch.
Israel literally has members of its own cabinet that pursue the extermination of palestinians. Gvir literally shows up to pro settler demonstrations and demands people be shot. You need to understand that a decade ago Israel was able to have its global image be quite pure, and people didn't read what Israelis and their government were saying at home. Now its quite easy to access, it would be simpler to drop the pretense.
> No. There are surviving people with a clear right to return they were removed from.
There’s very few Palestinians in Gaza alive from that time. Even then, while they may have a desire to return home it’s not something any other people in similar conflicts have gotten.
Just as the equivalent numbers of Sephardic Jews who had their properties and homes stolen in Arab nations aren’t going to get them back or get a right of return.
Again it sucks, but you’re asking for a fantasy that modern western people love. We forget how much of our peaceful lives were built on terrible histories.
However Gazans need to begin caring more about the lives of their children rather than trying to regain lost homes or some lost honor in controlling Jerusalem. Homes can be rebuilt.
> Lmao, if theres a fear that returned people would continue terrorism, the anger is coming from being held in an open air prison for decades.
Yet you forget that many Sephardic Jews in the Middle East lived under similar oppression for almost a millennia under various Muslim colonial powers. Yet you don’t give a pass for their terrible actions. That just shows your bias and lack of understanding of the actual history of the region.
You place all the blame on Israel, but Egypt controlled Gaza for decades. They also kept the Gazans trapped. They built concrete walls before the Israelis did.
Jordan keeps 2.39 million Palestinians trapped in refugee camps as well. Jordan tried allowing them to integrate in the 1970’s and they tried to assassinate the king and take over.
> It should be a police matter, from a government that protects all citizens. Thats the only way to start to repair things.
Also there is no “government” that could magically do what you’re saying. Governments aren’t magic. They’re created by people.
The UN British Mandate that was such a government and they proposed forcibly resettling and separating Jewish and Arab populations in the region. So even when your neutral government was tried it advocated for the same separation that happened.
Israeli Jews created a state to protect their people. Yet despite centuries of oppression by Muslim colonizers across the Middle East, Israel decided to give equal rights to their Arab citizens. In the past they’ve offered to allow some Palestinians to return as part of peace-fires and were rejected because they didn’t just want to return home. They have wanted to destroy Israel and install their own Islamic government. Arab nations around them encouraged this and funded this ideology.
> You need to understand that removing illegal settlers from gaza is like saying you stole someones house and gave them back the couch. Israel literally has members of its own cabinet that pursue the extermination of palestinians.
Again with the your simple slogans. Israeli people and their government went against their extremists and did the right thing in 2005.
Hamas did not reciprocate.
> You need to understand that a decade ago Israel was able to have its global image be quite pure, and people didn't read what Israelis and their government were saying at home. Now it’s quite easy to access, it would be simpler to drop the pretense.
You seem to forget that seemingly unlike yourself I lived there and studied Middle Eastern studies. I even learned a fair bit of Hebrew and a very little Arabic.
I even met some of those Israeli settlers. Generally unpleasant types.
However I rarely or never Israelis Jews say they wanted to kill all Palestinians. Most Israelis actually empathize with them and wished for peace but also want to protect their people. They cared less about houses and more about the lives of their people.
On the other hand, it was relatively common to hear Arab Palestinians wish for the death of all Jews when they learned I am not Jewish.
While I hope for peace in Gaza, I also know generations of ideological indoctrination of extremist Islamic won’t disappear overnight. You should study more on the history of the region, not this shallow westernized version.
> There’s very few Palestinians in Gaza alive from that time.
Ok and then who are those people that are living in Gaza and the West Bank right now? To which country do they belong?
> Even then, while they may have a desire to return home it’s not something any other people in similar conflicts have gotten.
I notice this kind of double-sided argument in lots of discussions. Human rights, Post-WWII world order when Israel is in the defensive, but "Everyone is doing it" and a weird fallback into 19th century "Great Game" morals when Israel is on the offensive.
Homes can be rebuilt, they can be rebuilt where settlers destroyed them.
>it’s not something any other people in similar conflicts have gotten.
If your perspective is "Might makes right" that's a worse position for a people with the history that the jewish people have, than a position that seeks justice.
Justice, and Israel being seen to be doing justice, would make Jews much much much more secure than chasing refugees into a prison and then failing to return them to their land because "it just doesn't happen".
>Jordan keeps 2.39 million Palestinians trapped in refugee camps as well. Jordan tried allowing them to integrate in the 1970’s and they tried to assassinate the king and take over.
Likewise, pushing the idea that a people can be bad, the most literal genetic fallacy, is also not making jewish people safer.
>Also there is no “government” that could magically do what you’re saying. Governments aren’t magic. They’re created by people.
Theres the Israeli government. If they wanted to be seen as legitimate (instead of simply a tool for the settler movement) they would be seen to be doing justice.
>Israeli people and their government went against their extremists and did the right thing in 2005.
Thats crazy. It wasnt even the minimum required.
>However I rarely or never Israelis Jews say they wanted to kill all Palestinians. Most Israelis actually empathize with them and wished for peace but also want to protect their people. They cared less about houses and more about the lives of their people.
I mean its so easily sourced why bother denying it lmao.
>While I hope for peace in Gaza, I also know generations of ideological indoctrination of extremist Islamic won’t disappear overnight. You should study more on the history of the region, not this shallow westernized version.
I know quite a lot about the history of this region, and everything I learn makes me even more angry with the state of Israel, and the extremists who built it.
> If your perspective is "Might makes right" that's a worse position for a people with the history that the jewish people have, than a position that seeks justice.
It’s not right, it just is. Ignoring realities of the situation has just made the lives of Gazans worse.
Accepting that the Jewish and an Arab populations separated and were exchanged after decades of fighting and massacres on both sides is just embracing reality.
The lives of the Palestinians would be better if as a culture and society, they accepted what happened and built new lives. The Israelis did.
Instead Gazan leaders with near unanimous popular support have continually tried to use violence and force to reconquer the lands they lost rather than protect their people. They use the lives of their children as human shields and their deaths as propaganda as they know militarily they’re weaker. They openly admit this.
Personally I find it cruel that parents in Gaza subject their children to indoctrination that being a jihadist and retaking Jerusalem is their noblest goal in life in order fuel a never ending conflict.
Again it’s tragic that two people groups with long established roots in the region were separated and displaced with both sides losing lands and properties during those decades.
However there’s no justice in saying only one of the two groups (the Palestinians) should be given their grand parents lands and properties back. That’s what the right of return of Palestinians would be as the Arab Muslim nations aren’t going to reciprocate for the displaced Jews.
Forcing relocation to “traditional” pre state of Israel regions would require even more horrible violence and force with people of both ethnicities loosing what they’ve built up in their lives. That’s not justice either.
That’s just wishful western liberal thinking. There’s usually a dash of racism of “poor brown people” too, despite the majority of Israeli Jews not being “white” or even from Europe.
> I mean it’s so easily sourced why bother denying it lmao.
I’m not denying it. Just saying that in my experience having met dozens or hundreds from both sides that one group was much more open on average to finding peace and even coexistence. That’s just my anecdotal data.
> I know quite a lot about the history of this region, and everything I learn makes me even more angry with the state of Israel, and the extremists who built it.
Then perhaps do you know enough of the history to be aware that Palestinians are largely descendants of the extremist Islamic colonizers who conquered the lands starting a thousand years back? The indigenous peoples there weren’t Arabs after all.
Those Muslim conquerors have for centuries persecuted not just Jewish, but also Christian, Druze, and many other minorities in not just Greater Syrian (what Israel and Palestine was called under the Ottoman Empire) but also the rest of the Middle East?
Again, I’ll point out that Arabs in Israel have equal rights as citizens and better lives than those in most of the surrounding Arab countries. There’s certainly some racism against them but they can and do build prosperous lives.
Trying to recast the history of the region into a white-colonial issue of the past 120 years is being ignorant of the history of the peoples and ethnicities in the area over the past 1000 years and more.
>The lives of the Palestinians would be better if as a culture and society, they accepted what happened and built new lives. The Israelis did.
The Israelis imported jewish people from all over the world to live on land that they pushed the palestinians out of. Its not exactly an equivalent "Move on" situation. Moving on would be aided by getting access to their land.
>However there’s no justice in saying only one of the two groups (the Palestinians) should be given their grand parents lands and properties back. That’s what the right of return of Palestinians would be as the Arab Muslim nations aren’t going to reciprocate for the displaced Jews.
I mean, happy for jewish refugees to be returned to various arab countries, heck even germany. I would not argue if they wanted to return to where they were removed from in living memory. The issue is that they don't, they are happy living on Palestinian land, while holding palestinians hostage.
>Then perhaps do you know enough of the history to be aware that Palestinians are largely descendants of the extremist Islamic colonizers who conquered the lands starting a thousand years back? The indigenous peoples there weren’t Arabs after all.
I am aware, but 1000 years ago is kind of outside of our timescale. If it helps, sometimes I do think Britain would be better off without the angles or saxons, but too much time has passed in both circumstances.
>Again, I’ll point out that Arabs in Israel have equal rights as citizens and better lives than those in most of the surrounding Arab countries. There’s certainly some racism against them but they can and do build prosperous lives.
Its fairly plainly false. Again, you speak of knowing so much about the region, but if you see how people are forced to live in the west bank you would never use the term equal.
Even it were a siege you also have the West Bank situation, where people have been squeezed into smaller and smaller areas with roadblocks and the establishment of settlements, and even that situation at its present intensity with actual killings is genocide.
I'm very happy to call what's happened to Jews in the middle east for the past century a genocide, but you don't earn genocide brownie points that you can inflict on another group.
If the war in Gaza was really just about Hamas, then a) Israel wouldn't have been tacitly supporting them for decades, and b) It would be well and truly over already, given that they're completely defanged and have no more competent regional allies.
they always had been or at least tried, for decades by now, the only thing which had been holding them back was the EU frequently being like "no wtf UK, that is against human rights, EU law, etc."
> Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?
no, and it also has a long track record of not only marginally improving your crime statistics. And especially stuff like facial recognition vans are most times not used to protect citizens but to create lists for who attended demos and similar. Which is most useful for suppressing/harassing your citizens instead of protecting them.