The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner Professor
Fraser Sampson has praised the government on a sensible
decision not to hand oversight of police use of DNA and
fingerprints to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) but
warned it’s a job only half done.
The government today revealed that it had scrapped plans to move
several key functions of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera
Commissioner’s role into the hands of the powerful ICO data
regulator.
The plan to move oversight of police use of biometrics appeared
late last year in a major government consultation called: Data: A
New Direction.
Several respondents, including Professor Sampson, told the
government that, for various reasons, it was a bad idea.
See OBSCC formal response
to Data: A New Direction.
Today, in its formal response to that
consultation (see section 5.8), the government said:
In the light of this feedback and wider engagement, including
with the current Biometrics and Surveillance Camera
Commissioner and law enforcement partners, the government… has
decided not to transfer these functions to the ICO…
Professor Sampson said:
It’s a sensible decision, as far as it goes. But the government’s
response needs detail on what they plan to do now with these
particular important functions. I won’t be in a position to offer
any meaningful observations until they have some specifics about
what will come next in terms of providing strong, principled, and
independent oversight in these important areas.
We now have an opportunity to come up with something really good,
not only in relation to DNA and fingerprints, but also in
relation to other existing and emerging biometric technology such
as live facial recognition.
We are talking about technologies that, it seems to me and many
others, are going to play larger and larger roles in all our
lives. We need a way of keeping in step with fast-paced change in
these areas in order to provide the public with the reassurance
they need that this tech will be used lawfully, responsibly and
according to a set of clear bright line principles that will
ensure the circumstances of their use are dictated by what
society agrees is acceptable and not just what technology
makes possible.
The government response says it will explore whether the existing
Investigatory Powers Commissioner, can instead take on some of
the Biometrics Commissioner’s functions.
Professor Sampson said:
As Biometrics Commissioner I independently oversee the use of
investigatory powers involving biometric material, ensuring they
are used in accordance with the law and in the public interest.
This description is almost identical to that of the
Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and it makes far more sense
for any transfer to go in that direction which was not an option
in the original consultation questions although who would be
taking the 100+ decisions per month on National Security
Determinations is not yet clear.
The government’s policy in this area continues to be one of
‘incremental steps’ to simplify regulation in this arena.
Professor Sampson continued:
If Parliament decides to move the functions, the next necessary
step in simplification will be to have one definition of
biometrics. At the moment ‘biometrics’ in policing only covers
the traditional fingerprints and DNA while schools have a wider
but less regulated definition. ‘Next generation biometrics’ such
as facial recognition, iris, vascular patterns, hormones and gait
are as much ‘biometrics’ as our fingerprints, and are – as we
heard at the event in London on ‘Legitimacy of facial recognition
in policing and law enforcement’ just this week - a matter of
growing public concern.
In addition, almost all the capability in this area is privately
owned, requiring our private sector technology partners to
demonstrate that they can be trusted in respect of their security
arrangements and their ethical values. Not only would this
simplify things, it would also bring the UK into line with
many other countries with whom we share biometrics for law
enforcement and national security purposes.
The government’s consultation response also said it would seek to
remove “duplication” between the ICO and Surveillance Camera
Commissioner aspect of Professor Sampson’s dual role.
The Professor said:
The commissioner’s functions flow directly from the Secretary of
State’s duty to publish a Code of Practice for the surveillance
of public space. If that duty were to be transferred to the
Information Commissioner, it would follow that responsibility for
compliance might sit with them, although many of the public’s
concerns about the expansion in state surveillance are not data
protection issues at all.
The acid test for any framework for the police use of biometric
and overt surveillance technology will be how far it allows us to
know that their technical capabilities (what is possible) are
only being used for legitimate, authorised purposes (what is
permissible) and in a way that the affected community is prepared
to support (what is acceptable)."
