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

Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system

I've responded to the government consultation on Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system via Foxglove.

 Dear Planning Policy Consultation Team,

I am an individual responding to the government’s consultation on ‘Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system’ (question 64).

Thank you for giving the British public the opportunity to have their say on these plans.

I want to register my concerns as an individual about the potentially devastating impact of new data centres on the environment, on water and electricity production and use, and on the UK’s transition to Net Zero and green energy.

The companies building these data centres are some of the richest on the planet. The government must make their involvement conditional on their investment in green energy – ensuring they give more than they take for the UK and from the environment.

The impacts can and should be mitigated by the planning application process in the following straightforward and commonsense ways:

1. Companies building new data centres must be able to show that the centre will have no negative impact on our targets to avoid climate catastrophe, including Net Zero by 2023.

2. Companies building new data centres must be able to show that the centre will not place significant additional burdens on our power and water supply.

3. Companies building new data centres should provide a plan explaining how it will sustainably meet the power and water needs of the centre without burdening the UK’s existing power and water supplies. Any costs associated with the additional energy or water requirements of a new data centre application must be covered by them - not by the British taxpayers.

Thank you, 

Ray Corrigan

Twitter has locked me out...

... and I'm not sure I want to even bother giving Mr Musk a fictional age to be allowed back in.

Reform response to ORG call to respect digital rights

The first response to my email to parliamentary candidates asking them to support digital rights in the next parliament has come from Reform candidate, James Gunn. He says:

"Hi Ray,

 Thanks for your email, This all makes a lot of sense although I might allow advertisees to optin for tracking for free  services subject to a proper explanation of what was being tracked and to whom it would be sold.

Here's "Our Contract with You" - like a manifesto, but we consider it a binding contract!   This is my only pledge
 
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371
 
I hope you’ll vote for me / Reform on 4th July
 
BWs
James
 
James Gunn
Parliamentary Candidate Reform, Oxford West and Abingdon
https://gofund.me/e14a0c69"

Calling on election candidates to support digital rights

I have written to my prospective parliamentary candidates:

Layla Moran - Liberal Democrats

Stephen Webb - Labour

Chris Goodhall - Green Party

James Gunn - Reform

Anni Byard - Social Democratic Party

Ian Oliver Michael Shelley - Christian People's Alliance

... asking that they commit to support a core selection of digital rights that the Open Rights Group are campaigning for.

"I'm writing to you as a [ ] candidate in the general election, as I care about digital rights.

I am a supporter of Open Rights Group a UK-based digital rights organisation that campaigns to protect our rights to privacy and free speech online.

"Open Rights Group is calling on the next government to:

1. Protect our right to send secure messages
Everyone – including children and young people – should have the right to use end-to-end encryption to ensure that our communications are safe, secure and private. The next government should protect not undermine encryption.

2. Provide migrants with digital sanctuary
Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers need the same data and privacy rights as everyone else so that they can keep their digital identity and information safe. The next government should commit to ending the digital hostile environment.

3. Ban the use of pre-crime AI by the police
Predictive policing systems that use artificial intelligence (AI) to ‘predict’ criminal behaviour undermine our right to be presumed innocent and exacerbate discrimination and inequality in our criminal justice system. The next government should ban dangerous uses of AI in policing.

4. Defend our right to freedom of expression online
Freedom of expression online is being undermined by age verification, content takedowns, social media censorship and unfair copyright claims. The next government should commit to protecting our right to freedom of expression online.

5. Strengthen our data protection rights
We need strong data protection laws to make sure that governments and companies do not use our data to track, surveil and profit from us. The next government should strengthen our data protection rights and make sure that the data protection watchdog is fit for purpose.

6. End intrusive tracking by online advertisers
Advertising companies track our internet use to build detailed profiles so they can target us with adverts. The next government should restrict intrusive tracking by data brokers and online advertisers.

We know that Political Parties will often not allow candidates to agree to support particular policy positions outside their manifesto.

Therefore, I am instead asking you to make a simple pledge. That, if elected, you will uphold digital rights in the next parliament.

If you want to register your support as a candidate that is committed to digital rights, then ORG has produced a page where you can do so - https://action.openrightsgroup.org/i-pledge-support-digital-rights

If you want to read ORG's full Digital Rights 24 Manifesto this can be read at. - https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/digital-rights-24/

I look forward to hearing your views on digital rights."

Reply from MP on Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill

 I got a response from my MP, Layla Moran, relating to concerns about the Investigatory Powers Amendment Bill, now Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024. It's boilerplate generic which, given Ms Moran's personal concerns on the terrible circumstances in Gaza, is understandable.

"Dear Ray 

Thank you for writing to me about the Investigatory Powers Bill.

In a changing world we rely on our intelligence services to help keep us safe. And we need a police force (National Crime Agency) that can cope with the internationalisation of crime. Liberal Democrats support the services that seek to do this.

These vital tasks have to be balanced against the freedoms and liberties at the heart of our country’s values. Every new power must be weighed in that balance.

Liberal Democrats are concerned about how these changes could undermine the privacy of everyone.

We have particular concerns about reductions in judicial scrutiny, and the possible use of available medical, genetic and legally privileged data.

For all its powers our police and security services need resources to take on the multinational cartels that prey on our people and threaten national security. Liberal Democrats will continue to push for resources to target these threats to our way of life.

Thanks again for writing to me about this incredibly important issue.

Best wishes, 

Layla

Layla Moran
Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Oxford West & Abingdon"