Live Facial Recognition: Police Guidance
Question asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the new College of Policing guidance on live facial
recognition.
The Minister of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, facial recognition is an important public safety tool
that helps the police to identify and eliminate suspects more
quickly and accurately. The Government welcome the College of
Policing’s national guidance, which responds to a recommendation
in the Bridges v South Wales
Police judgment.
(LD)
My Lords, despite committing to a lawful, ethical approach, the
guidance gives carte blanche to the use of live and retrospective
facial recognition, potentially allowing innocent victims and
witnesses to be swept on to police watch-lists. This is without
any legislation or parliamentary or other oversight, such as that
recently recommended by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee,
chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Are we not now
sleep-walking into a surveillance society, and is it not now time
for a moratorium on this technology, pending a review?
(Con)
I disagree with everything that the noble Lord has said. I think
every police force in the country uses retrospective facial
recognition. Watch-lists are deleted upon use at a deployment, so
there is no issue regarding ongoing data protection. Importantly,
just as CCTV and retrospective recognition are still used to
detect criminals, missing persons and vulnerable people, so is
the application of LFR.
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my membership of the Justice and
Home Affairs Committee, whose pertinent report of last week has
been referred to. Given the intrusive nature and racially
discriminatory potential of this technology, why does the
Minister not agree that legislation would be preferable to the
police writing their own guidance, which some of us find, in this
case, to be permissive and wholly unsatisfactory?
(Con)
There already is a legal framework. In terms of bias, I quote
from the US National Institute of Standards and Technology. It
found that NEC, which is the technology that the police use,
provided
“algorithms for which false positive differentials are
undetectable”
and that the algorithm
“is on many measures, the most accurate we have evaluated”.
It is for the police, within the legal framework, to decide how
and in what situation to deploy this technology.
The Lord
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former board member of the
Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. I wonder if the Minister
would comment on the vital importance of establishing public
trust and confidence in the deployment of FRT and indeed any new
technology, especially in such a sensitive area as policing. A
range of concerns have been raised about rapid deployment,
governance and bias by the CDEI, the European Union and the
makers of popular documentaries. Yet, in the face of this, the
Met and South Wales Police have
both announced a ramping up of the use of FRT. Does the Minister
agree that it is time to slow this down and for urgent
parliamentary scrutiny and better governance of the police’s use
of facial recognition technology?
(Con)
I do not think we need to slow it down—quite the contrary. It is
important that this is done in a clear way: that the police
explain why, who and where they are using their deployments. That
must be explained by the police. I think this has great potential
for good, and so I would not agree with the right reverend
Prelate.
(Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister, but in the light of
the forthcoming regulations that are going to be made in respect
of non-crime hate speech, is not facial recognition likewise so
important that it should not be left to mere guidance? Is it not
time now for the College of Policing to be put on a statutory
basis, and going forward, for facial recognition, like non-crime
hate speech, to be made subject to regulations approved under the
affirmative procedure?
(Con)
I disagree with my noble friend, because it is not left to
guidance. Where guidance comes in is in the deployment. There is
a legal basis on which to deploy, using powers including
common-law powers. It was on the back of the court judgment that
it was recommended that its use be clarified: the when and where
of the use of LFR.
(CB)
My Lords, I generally support the extension of facial recognition
technology, although I take the point made by the noble Lord,
, that it needs serious
consideration. Technology is moving forward so fast that I think
it is hard for all of us keep track of it. The three principles
that the Minister might agree should underpin that are
transparency of use, accountability about its use and that people
should have a remedy. If things are done wrong, they should be
able to check to see what they can do about it.
But the benefits are pretty outstanding. I know that, post the
riots of 2011, we had to deploy 800 officers to look at 250,000
hours of rioters on CCTV footage. This allowed us to arrest 5,500
people over 18 months, but it took us 800 people. There has to be
a smarter way of doing that. That would have been a retrospective
use. Therefore, does the Minister agree that careful improvements
in the future are wise, and that we should not stop, as the noble
Lord, , suggested, the use of
it altogether?
(Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord. The legal framework in which
it should operate is, A, for a policing purpose, B, where it is
necessary and, C, where it is proportionate and fair. I think
that pretty much accords with what the noble Lord said.
The Lord Speaker ()
The noble Lord, , will now contribute
remotely.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, this technology is used by the Chinese Government to
micro-manage the lives of its citizens, so its use here needs
strict rules and effective oversight. In the absence of
legislation, the police have tried to regulate themselves by
writing their own rules, but these are so vague that almost
anything goes: targeting people who “may cause harm”, whatever
that means. When will the Government do their job and legislate
to control the risks of this technology?
(Con)
My Lords, I have outlined the conditions in which it should be
used. To compare its use with how China looks at its people is
really taking a leap forward. As I have just pointed out, I think
that its use when fair, proportionate and for a policing purpose
is absolutely reasonable.
(Lab)
My Lords, the new guidance acknowledges long-running concerns
around algorithmic bias. Forces are rightly required to identify
and mitigate against bias but doing so requires expertise and, as
a result, additional costs. I have two questions: first, what
steps are the Government taking to ensure that forces across the
country have access to the resources they need to uphold these
new elements of the public sector equality duty? Secondly, which
independent body or individual has oversight powers to ensure
that facial recognition powers are used appropriately by police
forces and not inappropriately or for inappropriate purposes?
(Con)
The Bridges case tested this; it went to the courts. As the noble
Lord says, it is absolutely important that the police comply with
the public sector equality duty to maintain that public
confidence. There have been various tests for evidence of bias;
SWP and the Met have found no evidence of bias in their
algorithms.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, we should remember that the reassurances from the
Minister fall after we had a very lively debate in this House
about the College of Policing’s guidance on non-crime hate
incidents. Due to the campaigns of groups like Fair Cop, Free
Speech Union and Big Brother Watch, the powers have now been
rolled back; they were being abused and that was recognised. Is
the Minister in any way worried about enabling guidance that
gives the police huge powers to survey and criminalise non-crime
harms of any sort, hate or otherwise? Secondly, the number of
live facial recognition watchlists has gone up from 42 in 2017 to
5,000 now. Is that overreach, success or abuse? Who decides, when
on those watchlists will be victims or witnesses?
(Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that the people who can
be on watchlists include those wanted by the courts or subject to
bail conditions or other restrictions that would be breached if
they were at that location, as well as other suspects; and they
may indeed include vulnerable people. If my relative was missing
and I could avail of this technology, I would be very grateful
for its use.
