The deployment of Live Facial
Recognition (LFR) Technology by police forces in England and
Wales lacks a clear legal foundation, according to the House of
Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee. There are no rigorous
standards or systems of regulation in respect of the use of LFR,
and there is no consistency in approaches to training in its use
by police forces.
In a letter to the Home
Secretary (attached), published today, the Committee calls
for:
-
A clear foundation in law for the
use of LFR technology
-
A legislative framework for the
regulation of the deployment of LFR
technology
-
Clear structures and regulation in
relation to the use of LFR as well as independent
scrutiny
-
Future-proofing of regulations to
meet for rapid advancement in
technology
-
Consistency in training and in the
use of LFR across England and Wales.
The police should make it very
apparent to the public when and where LFR technology is being
deployed. Pre-deployment communication must be standardised
through a national enforceable
procedure.
The Committee accepts that LFR may be
a valuable tool for police forces in apprehending criminals, but
it is deeply concerned that its use is being expanded without
proper scrutiny and accountability.
The Committee calls on the Government
to address these points. It is essential to ensure that the
public trusts the police in its operations and supports the use
of the technology.
, Chair of the Justice and
Home Affairs Committee said:
“Does the use of LFR have a basis in
law? Is it actually legal?
“It is essential that the public
trusts LFR and how it is used. It is fundamental that the legal
basis is clear. Current regulation is not sufficient. Oversight
is inadequate.
“Technology is developing so fast that
regulation must be future-proofed. Police forces may soon be able to link LFR cameras to trawl
large populations, such as Greater London, and not just specific
localities.
"We
are an outlier as a democratic state in the speed at which we are
applying this technology. We question why there is
such disparity between the approach in England and Wales and
other democratic states in the regulation of
LFR.”
