Automated Facial Recognition Surveillance

Defended the government's support for live facial recognition technology as a tool to help identify violent criminals. Emphasised adherence to legal frameworks, data protection measures, and transparency in operations.

Called for caution regarding the roll-out of live facial recognition technology, questioning its legality, accuracy, and potential discriminatory impacts. Raised concerns about privacy rights and trust within BAME communities.

Questioned whether there is a difference in one's legal status if identified by a police officer or software, suggesting that the method of identification does not alter rights.

Acknowledged facial recognition technology's potential but expressed doubt about current safeguards. Highlighted risks of inaccuracies leading to wrongful accusations, particularly for black people and women.

Inquired how the proportionate use of facial recognition could assist in tackling serious crimes like county lines drug offending.

Expressed concerns about automated facial recognition technology's impact on privacy, freedoms, and potential for bias. Emphasised the need for a comprehensive legislative framework with strong oversight to ensure human rights are respected. Questioned the effectiveness of AFR in fighting crime.

Defended the use of automated facial recognition technology as a standard policing technique, highlighting its potential benefits and examples of successful pilots elsewhere. Emphasised that it is used proportionately and with strict legal frameworks to ensure human rights are respected.

Saw the technology as a benefit for fighting crime, particularly in locating missing people quickly. Highlighted the importance of ethical controls and privacy requirements.

Asked about the biometrics strategy's update to provide a regulatory framework for facial recognition technology. Raised concerns over an outdated strategy potentially at the root of issues with AFR use.

Welcomed measures involving facial recognition technology, seeing them as crucial in tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. Asked about its application to address drug running and antisocial behaviour in his constituency.

Critiqued the potential biases of facial recognition technology based on its design and training data, asking for minimum standards before rollout to prevent unequal outcomes.

Asked about how the technology could be used during events like the Cheltenham festival to ensure safety from those who might wish to do harm to large numbers of people.

Emphasised the importance of utilising facial recognition technology appropriately where it can prevent crime and apprehend criminals, provided it is used correctly to maintain personal privacy rights.

Asked about updates to guidelines for facial recognition considering technological developments. Highlighted the need for transparency in its use.

Called for a cautious approach, emphasising the importance of maintaining public trust and suggested pausing its deployment until proper legal frameworks are established.

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in stating there is no legal framework for facial recognition technology; the High Court has certified its use and it aligns with recommendations from expert organisations. While we must be agile, we also need to maintain public confidence by being transparent about deployment and results. The police's duty includes identifying wanted criminals quickly and effectively, which this technology can help achieve.

Criminals use technology to spread crime; therefore, the Government should work with organisations like Ada Lovelace Institute to ensure ethical guidelines are established for using technology in combating crime.

Concerned about potential misuse of facial recognition technology similar to practices seen in Xinjiang, China. Questions whether such technology could be used against people participating in peaceful assemblies, leading to mass surveillance and oppression.

In an age of smartphones and CCTV, privacy in public is already under threat; it’s inevitable that identification technology will advance further. The challenge lies in preserving privacy while ensuring legal frameworks remain intact.

Acknowledges the need to balance technological advancements with privacy concerns. Emphasises the importance of democratic control over technology and transparent data handling, including mechanisms for individuals to seek deletion or amendment of their personal information.

Raises concerns about the deployment of facial recognition technology infringing upon rights, particularly affecting Muslim women who wear niqabs and potentially being less accurate for ethnic minorities.

Clarifies that no one will be required to remove their niqab or other facial coverings. Stresses the importance of human judgment in determining whether intervention is proportionate after a system match.

Highlights data privacy and human rights issues associated with facial recognition technology while acknowledging its usefulness in solving crimes. Suggests Parliament should proactively establish frameworks to accommodate new technologies as they develop.

Agrees on the importance of embracing technological advancements under democratic control and strict legal frameworks. Acknowledges the potential for bias in technology and commits to monitoring and correcting unintended consequences.

Supports the use of facial recognition technology as a powerful tool against serious crimes like knife crime. Requests reassurance that it will be used proportionately without mass retention of movement data.

Reassures the House about the non-retention of movement data unless evidential requirements are met, and that intervention is only for serious crimes. Emphasises operational independence of the police in deploying this technology.

Highlights the issue of embedding bias in technologies due to early adoption of artificial intelligence, which can disproportionately affect ethnic minority women. Urges the Government to monitor improvements in these technologies as they are adopted.