Edward Bridges accused South Wales Police (SWP) of infringing his privacy and data protection rights when his face was scanned during police trials for the use of automated facial recognition (AFR) in public places. The High Court in Cardiff ruled that the Police’s use was legal, ruling: ‘We are satisfied both that the current legal regime is adequate to ensure appropriate and non-arbitrary use of AFR Locate, and that South Wales Police’s use to date of AFR Locate has been consistent with the requirements of the Human Rights Act and the data protection legislation’.
The SWP was pleased with the ruling, naturally, but, at the same time, acknowledged that the police should not determine the extent to which this technology can be used; the Chief Constable remarked, ‘I recognise that the use of AI and face-matching technologies around the world is of great interest and, at times, concern. So, I’m pleased that the court has recognised the responsibility that South Wales Police has shown in our programme. There is, and should be, a political and public debate about wider questions of privacy and security. It would be wrong in principle for the police to set the bounds of our use of new technology for ourselves.’ That bodies other than the police are responsible for determining where and when AFC can be used did not appear to be foremost in their minds when the SWP, Metropolitan Police and others established trials of the technology. Indeed, it was reported widely that the police were quite disappointed with a member of the public who did not wish to participate in the trial in Romford.
The response of the Government Commissioners’ has been fascinating. The Information Commissioner, who has recently opened an investigation into the use of AFC in the public areas of the private estate in vast redevelopment of King’s Cross, London, said,
‘We will be reviewing the judgement carefully. We welcome the court’s finding that the police use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) systems involves the processing of sensitive personal data of members of the public, requiring compliance with the Data Protection Act 2018. This new and intrusive technology has the potential, if used without the right privacy safeguards, to undermine rather than enhance confidence in the police.
‘We will now consider the court’s findings in finalising our recommendations and guidance to police forces about how to plan, authorise and deploy any future LFR systems.’ See, https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2019/09/statement-high-court-judgement-frt-south-wales-police/
The Surveillance Camera Commissioner emphasised his particular interest in the governance of public CCTV:
‘I would urge a degree of caution on the part of the police to regard the judgment as being a green light for the generic deployment of AFR. It is an intrusive tool with human rights and public confidence implications which have to be considered. There is however a heightened sense of confidence that in appropriate circumstances such use will be lawful but must be demonstrably conducted within the legal framework and demonstrate good governance and legitimacy of endeavour.’ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-use-of-facial-recognition-technology-by-south-wales-police/statement-on-the-high-court-judgment-on-the-use-of-automatic-facial-recognition-technology-by-south-wales-police
This illustrates how difficult the state finds it to regulate its own institutions. The Police implemented trials in new technology without reference to the Government’s commissioners, leaving them trailing in its wake. This was not simply a matter of a Tech companies innovating at the extraordinarily fast rate that we know them to do but, one also suspects, the Police was more than a little bit in love with technology and encouraged to be so by smart Tech company executives.
The Biometrics Commissioner was the most interesting and grasped the risks inherent in the advancements in the development and deployment of not just facial recognition but other biometric systems, making a very powerful point about how technology is not benign but, rather, its adoption will be a strong determining factor in the type of society that we will live in. A state of the nation address, if you will:
‘….The bigger question going forward is whether there should be a specific legal framework for the police (and others) to routinely deploy new biometrics including AFR but also voice recognition, gait analysis, iris analysis or other new biometric technologies as they emerge. The judgment in this case does not provide the answer to this, which is, in my view, for Ministers and Parliament to decide.
‘Since (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) was passed the use of new biometrics, such as facial image matching is rapidly being adopted by both law enforcement agencies and private sector companies.
‘Just like DNA and fingerprints, all such systems are an intrusion into an individual’s privacy and potentially into their liberty… Given that these new technologies have multiple and widespread uses the question of whether we allow such systems to be used, and for what purposes and within what legal control will shape the nature of our social and political world well into the future. For that reason the choices that are now before us about the use of biometric systems are strategic decisions about the future world we want to live in.
‘China has already made such a strategic choice and is trialling biometric systems that are designed to allow the state to constantly monitor the behaviour of its citizens and control their future actions and thinking. China is also aiming to be the leading country in the development of these new technologies and to export its technology to other countries.
‘I am not suggesting that the UK will want to make the same strategic choice as China but simply that we also have to decide how we do wish to see the new technologies used and what kind of future world we want to thereby to create.’ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/automated-facial-recognition?utm_source=571e2317-e0f2-4af7-9022-a75d7944eb7a&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=daily
