Note to MP on parliamentary debate on face recognition

At the behest of Big Brother Watch, I've writen to my MP, Layla Moran, asking her to participate in the Westminster Hall debate on police use of face recognition technology scheduled in parliament for next Wednesday, 13 November, from 9:30am to 11am.

 Dear Layla,

You may recall that I wrote to you last year noting a survey of over 100 MPs, carried out by YouGov on behalf of Privacy International, indicating that 70% of MPs did not know whether facial recognition technology (FRT) was being used in public spaces in their constituency.

On this occasion I am writing to you to ask you to attend and speak at a debate taking place next Wednesday 13th November at 9:30 am in Westminster Hall on the police’s use of live facial recognition. The debate is sponsored by Sir John Whittingdale MP and I would appreciate it if you could raise the concerns I have about the use of this technology and its impact on human rights and civil liberties in the UK.

Live facial recognition works by creating a 'faceprint' of everyone who passes in front of the camera — processing biometric data as sensitive as a fingerprint. This form of surveillance is deeply intrusive, often subjecting many thousands of innocent people to biometric identity checks without justification. Seven police forces around the UK are currently using this technology despite there being no specific law which governs its use, with forces such as Essex Police, the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police continuing to use LFR on a regular basis in a way that affects millions of us as we live and travel around the UK.

Uses of live facial recognition have resulted in privacy and data breaches, misidentifications, racial discrimination, and a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression and assembly. In 2020, South Wales Police was found to have deployed live facial recognition surveillance unlawfully (Bridges v SWP) and the Metropolitan Police is also facing a judicial review brought by a Black victim of live facial recognition misidentification which took place earlier this year. Other victims of live facial recognition harassment and errors are initiating legal action in the retail context.

In recent years, parliamentarians across parties in Westminster, members of the Senedd, rights and equalities groups and technology experts across the globe have called for a stop to the use of this technology. The only detailed inquiry into the use of live facial recognition by a parliamentary committee called for a stop to its use. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) called for the UK Government to suspend live facial recognition in 2020.

Governments across the democratic world are legislating to ban and significantly restrict the use of live facial recognition surveillance, for both law enforcement and private companies – but successive governments have left the UK behind. The EU’s AI Act will introduce an almost total ban on the use of live facial recognition, with law enforcement exceptions for only the most serious crimes and on the condition of prior judicial approval for each deployment. In the US, multiple states have banned law enforcement from using the technology entirely. The UK risks becoming an outlier in the democratic world, instead following the approach of countries like Russia and China, which have heavily invested in this technology to the detriment of their citizens’ rights and freedoms.

The legal vacuum when it comes to the police’s use of live facial recognition technology cannot continue. The UK must follow the example set by European states and introduce stringent restrictions on the use of this surveillance technology akin to the EU’s AI Act. For more information, please contact Big Brother Watch at info@bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

In addition to police use of such technologies, there is an increasing expansion of their deployment in the retail sector and other areas. The local Budgens supermarket has recently installed a face recognition system. Having used that shop for 25 years, I intend never to cross their threshold again. For ordinary citizens to have to exclude themselves from routine activities and locations they frequented for generations, simply to avoid these intrusive surveillance technologies is not conducive to the maintenance of a healthy society.

As my MP I would appreciate it if you could attend next Wednesday’s debate and raise my concerns.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Ray Corrigan