How live facial recognition (LFR) technology was trialled in London by the Metropolitan Police carried significant flaws, according to a report by academics. The authors of the report, Professor Peter Fussey and Dr Daragh Murray at the Human Rights, Big Data & Technology Project, based at the University of Essex Human Rights Centre, conclude that it is “highly possible” the Met Police’s use of LFR to-date would be held unlawful if challenged in court. They have also documented what they believe to be significant operational shortcomings in the trials which could affect the viability of any future use of LFR technology.
In light of their findings Professor Fussey and Dr Murray are calling for all live trials of LFR to be ceased until these concerns are addressed, noting that it is essential that human rights compliance is ensured before deployment, and that there be an appropriate level of public scrutiny and debate on a national level. After reviewing the report, the Metropolitan Police chose not to exercise its right of reply.
Prof Fussey said: “This report was based on detailed engagement with the Metropolitan Police’s processes and practices surrounding the use of live facial recognition technology. It is appropriate that issues such as those relating to the use of LFR are subject to scrutiny, and the results of that scrutiny made public.
“The Metropolitan Police’s willingness to support this research is welcomed. The report demonstrates a need to reform how certain issues regarding the trialling or incorporation of new technology and policing practices are approached, and underlines the need to effectively incorporate human rights considerations into all stages of the Metropolitan Police’s decision making processes. It also highlights a need for meaningful leadership on these issues at a national level.”
The men had access to the final six of the ten trials run by the Met, running from June 2018 to February 2019. They joined officers on location in the LFR control rooms and engaged with officers responding on the ground. They also attended briefing and de-briefing sessions, and planning meetings. The researchers query if the Met did a detailed enough impact assessment; the Met they say did not appear to engage effectively with the ‘necessary in a democratic society’ test established by human rights law. LFR was approached in a manner similar to traditional CCTV. This fails to take into account factors such as the intrusive nature of LFR, and the use of biometric processing, according to the report. The academics make the point that the research methodology document prepared by the Met focuses primarily on the technical aspects of the trials. There does not appear to be a clearly defined research plan that sets out how the test deployments are intended to satisfy the non-technical objectives, such as those relating to the use of LFR as a policing tool.
For the 128-page report, click here.
Picture by Mark Rowe; street art, Caledonian Road, north London.
