comment on this article

New legislation needed to regulate police facial recognition tech

Facial recognition technology, being trialled by two major police forces in Britain, should be subjected to more rigorous testing and transparency, according to new research from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and Monash University.

Facial recognition technology (FRT) involves the identification of an individual based on an analysis of the geometric features of his or her face, and a comparison between the algorithm created from the captured image and one already stored, such as from a custody image or social media account.

The Leicestershire Police and the other two forces trialling FRT - the Metropolitan Police Service and the South Wales Police - argue the technology is lawful and its use in surveillance operations is proportionate. But researchers from UEA and Monash University in Australia say the technology could violate human rights. They argue there has not been sufficient statistical information about the trials made publicly available for scrutiny. The limited outcomes that have been shared, the researchers say, have shown high false-positive identification rates and a low number of positive matches with 'known offenders'.

Furthermore, the researchers say the trials are a costly use of public funds: £200,000 for the Met Police trials and £2.6 million for those run by the South Wales Police.

Dr Joe Purshouse of the UEA School of Law, said: "These FRT trials have been operating in a legal vacuum. There is currently no legal framework specifically regulating the police use of FRT.

"Parliament should set out rules governing the scope of the power of the police to deploy FRT surveillance in public spaces to ensure consistency across police forces. As it currently stands, police forces trialling FRT are left to come up with divergent, and sometimes troubling, policies and practices for the execution of their FRT operations."

A key concern of the researchers is around the 'watch list' databases of facial images assembled from lists of wanted suspects and missing persons, but also other 'persons of interest'. There is no legal prohibition of police forces taking images from the internet or social media accounts to populate the 'watch lists'.

Dr Purshouse and Prof Liz Campbell of Monash University say there is a risk that people with old or minor convictions could be targeted by FRT, as well as those with no convictions whose images are retained and used by police after an arrest that did not lead to a conviction.

The accuracy of the technology has been brought into question by the researchers, leading to concerns that some individuals might be disproportionately included on 'watch lists'.

According to the researchers, the limited independent testing and research into FRT technology indicates that numerous FRT systems misidentify ethnic minorities and women at higher rates than the rest of the population. A disproportionate number of custody images are of black and minority ethnic groups, and as these images are routinely used to populate FRT databases, there is a particular risk that members of the public from black or ethnic minority backgrounds will be mistakenly identified as 'persons of interest'.

Dr Purshouse said: "There appears to be a credible risk that FRT technology will undermine the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of already over-policed groups."

The police forces trialling FRT say the technology has been effective in preventing crime and ensuring public safety. The researchers say that currently there is no meaningful way of measuring success, but that the technology might be deterring those who could pose a threat to the public from attending gatherings where FRT surveillance is known to be in use.

The researchers say the use of FRT surveillance is on the rise without sufficient reflection on its aims and consequences. The ways in which it has the potential to interfere with citizens' privacy related rights are multifaceted and complex, and without a full understanding of this potential we cannot hope to adequately regulate this form of policing technology.

Dr Purshouse added: "Rather than gradually becoming a pervasive and chilling feature of public life, FRT surveillance should only be targeted against credible and serious threats to public safety."

Author
Bethan Grylls

Comment on this article


This material is protected by MA Business copyright See Terms and Conditions. One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not. For multiple copies contact the sales team.

What you think about this article:


Add your comments

Name
 
Email
 
Comments
 

Your comments/feedback may be edited prior to publishing. Not all entries will be published.
Please view our Terms and Conditions before leaving a comment.

Related Articles

Coding guidelines

The two leading consortiums in coding guidelines, MISRA and AUTOSAR, have ...

ISS launches MAS

INTEGRITY Security Services (ISS) has announced the ISS Misbehavior Authority ...

Securing our airports

A the end of 2018 Gatwick airport and the UK authorities were forced to bring ...

EMI filters range

XP Power has introduced a range of chassis mount and IEC inlet EMI filters that ...

The Ben Heck Show

In this episode of element 14's The Ben Heck Show, Ben explores a new Android ...

Fall-out

The news that Uber has been forbidden by the US state governor of Arizona to ...

Battery technology

The move to battery powered vehicles is gathering speed. The UK has joined ...

Broadband upgrade

BT has made an offer to the government to spend £600million to deliver 10Mbps ...

Myrddin Jones, TSB

The Technology Strategy Board (TSB) has hundreds of success stories of all ...

Richard Alderman, SFO

The director of the Serious Fraud Office tells Graham Pitcher he is looking to ...