He said:
I welcome the publication of the Big Brother
Watch report as in my view it adds value to a
much needed debate on a matter of growing public
interest, the public interest which demands clear
legislation, transparency in governance and approach
and a coherent and effective regulatory framework in
which they can derive confidence whenever and wherever
their civil liberties are at risk from the state. I
shall consider the report carefully.
The effective regulation of use of face identification
technology (commonly referred to as Automated Face
Recognition or AFR) by the police is a priority of the
National Surveillance Camera Strategy and a matter
which I have been addressing as a priority for some
time now, engaging with the National Police Chief’s
Council, the Home Office, fellow regulators and
Ministers alike.
The police have to abide by the Surveillance Camera
Code of Practice which I regulate under the terms of
Section 33(1) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Those
familiar with the content of the code will know that it
is explicit in that face identification technologies
used by the police in England and Wales will be
regulated by it. That is not to say that I consider
existing or indeed anticipated legislation as being
wholly sufficient in these matters. I do not. My fellow
regulators, the Biometrics Commissioner and in recent
times the Information Commissioner have added welcome
contributions to the debate.
I do think that the police are genuinely doing their
best with AFR and to work within the current and
anticipated legal regulatory framework governing overt
surveillance. That framework is far less robust than
that which governs covert surveillance, yet arguably
the evolving technological capabilities of overt
surveillance is the equal in terms of intrusion, to
that which is conducted covertly. It is inescapable
that AFR capabilities can be an aid to public safety
particularly from terrorist threats in crowded or
highly populated places. Andrew Parker, the DG of the
Security Service rather eloquently set out the threat
context to our society only recently. It is
understandable that there is an appetite within law
enforcement agencies to exploit face identification
capabilities, an appetite which is doubtlessly borne
out of a duty and determination to keep us safe. This
technology already exist in society for our convenience
and therefore it is arguable that the public will have
something of an expectation that those technologies are
so used by agents of the state to keep us safe from
serious threats, but only in justifiable circumstances
where their use is lawful, ethical, proportionate and
transparent.
In the context of safety, the public also need to be
safe from unlawful, disproportionate and illegitimate
state intrusion, and they must have confidence that
those technologies have integrity. In my view, the
challenge is arriving at a balance and for that to
happen there need to be a clear framework of legitimacy
and transparency which guides the state, holds it to
account and delivers confidence and security amongst
the public. I have yet to have confidence that
government has a satisfactory approach to the issue in
delivering a framework upon which the police and others
can rely and upon and which the public can have
confidence, but I do believe that we are on a journey
to that destination and a journey is fuelled by
constructive and challenging debate.
