Saturday, December 23, 2023
Surveillance State
I have been away for a couple of days so have not had a chance to comment on the proposed extension of the surveillance state currently being mooted by the Tories.
Facial recognition software has, of course, been controversial, with the court of appeal ruling in 2020 that South Wales police’s use of facial recognition technology had breached privacy rights, data protection laws and equality laws, given the risk the technology could have a race or gender bias. It means that every one of us is under suspicion and has a built in bias against ethnic minorities.
However, instead of withdrawing the technology until it can be refined and have safeguards and oversight put in place, the government and the police are doubling down with new legislation that will effectively put all UK drivers in a permanent police line-up.
The Guardian reports that once the new criminal justice bill becomes law, the police will be able to run facial recognition searches on a database containing images of all of Britain’s 50 million driving licence holders.
They say that should the police wish to put a name to an image collected on CCTV, or shared on social media, the legislation would provide them with the powers to search driving licence records for a match:
The move, contained in a single clause in a new criminal justice bill, could put every driver in the country in a permanent police line-up, according to privacy campaigners.
Facial recognition searches match the biometric measurements of an identified photograph, such as that contained on driving licences, to those of an image picked up elsewhere.
The intention to allow the police or the National Crime Agency (NCA) to exploit the UK’s driving licence records is not explicitly referenced in the bill or in its explanatory notes, raising criticism from leading academics that the government is “sneaking it under the radar”.
Once the criminal justice bill is enacted, the home secretary, James Cleverly, must establish “driver information regulations” to enable the searches, but he will need only to consult police bodies, according to the bill.
Critics claim facial recognition technology poses a threat to the rights of individuals to privacy, freedom of expression, non-discrimination and freedom of assembly and association.
Police are increasingly using live facial recognition, which compares a live camera feed of faces against a database of known identities, at major public events such as protests.
Prof Peter Fussey, a former independent reviewer of the Met’s use of facial recognition, said there was insufficient oversight of the use of facial recognition systems, with ministers worryingly silent over studies that showed the technology was prone to falsely identifying black and Asian faces.
He said: “This constitutes another example of how facial recognition surveillance is becoming extended without clear limits or independent oversight of its use. The minister highlights how such technologies are useful and convenient. That police find such technologies useful or convenient is not sufficient justification to override the legal human rights protections they are also obliged to uphold.”
No doubt those in favour of this law will say that if we have done nothing wrong, then we have nothing to fear. However, the implications are far wider than just finding wanted criminals in a crowd, that is when the technology works.
Facial recognition software has, of course, been controversial, with the court of appeal ruling in 2020 that South Wales police’s use of facial recognition technology had breached privacy rights, data protection laws and equality laws, given the risk the technology could have a race or gender bias. It means that every one of us is under suspicion and has a built in bias against ethnic minorities.
However, instead of withdrawing the technology until it can be refined and have safeguards and oversight put in place, the government and the police are doubling down with new legislation that will effectively put all UK drivers in a permanent police line-up.
The Guardian reports that once the new criminal justice bill becomes law, the police will be able to run facial recognition searches on a database containing images of all of Britain’s 50 million driving licence holders.
They say that should the police wish to put a name to an image collected on CCTV, or shared on social media, the legislation would provide them with the powers to search driving licence records for a match:
The move, contained in a single clause in a new criminal justice bill, could put every driver in the country in a permanent police line-up, according to privacy campaigners.
Facial recognition searches match the biometric measurements of an identified photograph, such as that contained on driving licences, to those of an image picked up elsewhere.
The intention to allow the police or the National Crime Agency (NCA) to exploit the UK’s driving licence records is not explicitly referenced in the bill or in its explanatory notes, raising criticism from leading academics that the government is “sneaking it under the radar”.
Once the criminal justice bill is enacted, the home secretary, James Cleverly, must establish “driver information regulations” to enable the searches, but he will need only to consult police bodies, according to the bill.
Critics claim facial recognition technology poses a threat to the rights of individuals to privacy, freedom of expression, non-discrimination and freedom of assembly and association.
Police are increasingly using live facial recognition, which compares a live camera feed of faces against a database of known identities, at major public events such as protests.
Prof Peter Fussey, a former independent reviewer of the Met’s use of facial recognition, said there was insufficient oversight of the use of facial recognition systems, with ministers worryingly silent over studies that showed the technology was prone to falsely identifying black and Asian faces.
He said: “This constitutes another example of how facial recognition surveillance is becoming extended without clear limits or independent oversight of its use. The minister highlights how such technologies are useful and convenient. That police find such technologies useful or convenient is not sufficient justification to override the legal human rights protections they are also obliged to uphold.”
No doubt those in favour of this law will say that if we have done nothing wrong, then we have nothing to fear. However, the implications are far wider than just finding wanted criminals in a crowd, that is when the technology works.
This change will enable the state to use the technology for political purposes, tracking activists and single issue campaigners. It will even enable an unscrupulous government to use it against democratically elected political opponents.
This legislation is taking us one step closer to a police state. It must be opposed.
This legislation is taking us one step closer to a police state. It must be opposed.
