Ban police use of face recognition technology

At the suggestion of the Open Rights Group, I've written to my local council about police use of face recognition technology.

 "I am writing to urge you to to ban police use of live facial recognition technology in Abingdon East.

These surveillance tools are being deployed by police without public consent, or clear legal grounds, undermining the right to privacy, the right to be presumed innocent and making police misuse of the technology more likely.

These tools do not predict crime – they predict policing. Built on flawed, discriminatory data, they disproportionately target Black and racialised communities, low-income areas, and migrants. Rather than making our communites safer, these technologies reinforce racism and criminalise poverty.

“Predictive policing” strips away our fundamental right to be presumed innocent. It creates fear, not safety. The European Union has already recognised these harms and taken action to ban such technologies. The UK must do the same.

It is well documented that when police are given new tools, it is Black and racialised communities that bear the brunt of the harm, with consequences including increased police harassment, injury from use of force and unjust stop and search. I am deeply concerned for the safety of my neighbours if we are to allow police use of “crime predicting” technology to become anymore embedded in our neighbourhoods.

We all want to feel safe in our local areas, but real safety comes from investing in our communities – not from surveillance that fuels fear and distrust.

That is why I urge you to stand in solidarity with your local community, by bringing forward a motion to ban this dangerous tech. As your constituent, I want to feel confident that my rights and safety are being protected.

Please take urgent action to prohibit the use of “crime-predicting” technologies and protect the rights and freedoms of all."

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

Note to MP on Face Recognition Technologies

At the behest of Privacy International, I have written to my MP, Layla Moran about the expansion in the deployment of face recognition technologies.

Dear Layla,

 A recent survey of over 100 MPs, carried out by YouGov on behalf of Privacy International, indicates that 70% of MPs don’t know whether facial recognition technology (FRT) is being used in public spaces in their constituency. I would appreciate it if you could investigate how widespread the deployment of face recognition systems is in the Abingdon area, specifically but also in our wider Oxford West & Abingdon constituency.

 The Home Office, on the orders of policing minister, Chris Philp, is making plans, in blatant breach of the UK GDPR, to use FRT on the UK passport photo database and immigration records to identify individuals. There are also reports of closed door meetings between Mr Philp and the FRT company, Facewatch. In the wake of those meetings, the minister has demanded increased the use of FRT across retail spaces and the Home Office issued a warning to the Information Commissioner’s Office that their investigation into Facewatch should produce a positive outcome, otherwise they would be getting a complaint from the minister.

 Widespread and unchecked use of facial recognition tech, building on the infrastructure of mass surveillance that has grown exponentially in the 21^st century, is creating a surveillance society where everyone is identified and tracked everywhere they go. This poses serious threats to our human rights; not only the right to privacy but our right to protest and freedom of expression. All this is taking place within a democratic vacuum. Successive UK governments, for the past three decades, rather than deploying legislative checks and balances against this mass surveillance, in the public interest, have, too often, encouraged and exploited these developments for their own short term political ends and to undermine fundamental rights.

 Face recognition tech is not the route to more effective or enlightened policing. Palestinians have long suffered oppression facilitated by technologies of mass surveillance. The Palestinian territories are one of the most intensive spaces for the testing of military and surveillance technologies that are then exported all round the world. Yet that intensive surveillance did not prevent the mass killings by Hamas of 1200 Israeli citizens on 7 October.  Nor did it stop the Netanyahu government from reacting brutally to those murders, indiscriminately and repeatedly bombing civilians while cutting off access to all basic necessities, killing and maiming thousands in the process.

 Mass surveillance is never the answer, with or without FRT but when it comes to the deployment of face recognition technology, the public have a right to know if it is being used in their local area and in public spaces. So, I would really appreciate you and your staff making representations to obtain the following information:

1. Is FRT is being used in the Abingdon area and if so how, where, by whom, with what authority, when, for what purposes and for how long do they retain the images/video collected.

2. Ask the local retail consortium and/or the largest local retailers and event spaces if they are using FRT in this constituency;

3. Ask Thames Valley Police Chief Constable, Jason Hogg, about the local police force’s deployment of FRT, or upcoming plans of deployment, in our local public spaces.

 Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Ray Corrigan