Facial Recognition: Police Use

As a criminal barrister, Ayoub Khan highlighted difficulties with experts in identifying suspects through facial recognition technology. He expressed concern about the potential impact of deploying such technology on high streets and its disproportionate effect on minority communities, citing instances where black males are disproportionately stopped and searched.

Concerned about the room for error in live facial recognition technology, Bell Ribeiro-Addy highlighted potential mix-ups leading to traumatic encounters with the police. She cited instances of image mislabelling and racial bias in technology, arguing that it undermines public trust among ethnic minorities. Drawing from a personal anecdote, she warned against the use of flawed algorithms and the impact on already high rates of stops and searches for people of colour. Bell Ribeiro-Addy responded to McMurdock's intervention, emphasizing that concerns about racial discrimination are based on data and evidence rather than mere assumptions.

Mr. Dean expressed concerns about the potential for discrimination, particularly towards black communities, due to live facial recognition technology. He also highlighted the importance of privacy in society and the risks associated with expanding the use of such technology without strict controls.

The system has been tested by the national physical laboratory about two years ago, with no racial bias found at the settings used by the police. The hon. Member provides this context to offer some reassurance on the question of racial bias. The technology does not change the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty, but it allows for identity checks based on suspicion without undermining legal standards. Explained the process of live facial recognition, emphasizing that it targets individuals wanted for criminal offences and does not overturn the presumption of innocence. Discussed racial disparity and misidentification rates, highlighting improvements in algorithm accuracy and reduced likelihood of inappropriate stops compared to regular stop and searches. Reported successful arrests made using this technology in Croydon and stressed the importance of public guidelines and regulations to ensure lawful use.

The right hon. Member supports the view that judicial oversight is necessary, and innocent people's records should be destroyed straightaway under legislative control rather than guidelines. Suggests that live facial recognition could lead to unauthorized uses due to technological slippage, referencing historical issues with automatic number plate recognition.

The hon. Member questions the reliability of facial recognition technology, noting that there is no such thing as zero misidentification and concerns about lack of judicial oversight. Expresses concern about the impact of live facial recognition on civil liberties and racial bias in identification accuracy. Highlights the importance of regulation to protect against misuse and ensure fair use of technology. The hon. Lady made an incredibly powerful speech and asked whether she was aware of the Big Brother Watch campaign to stop large shops from capturing people's faces, which can lead to misidentification in other places. Black men are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than their white counterparts, and 35 times more likely under section 60. This technology accelerates discrimination that is already present in the system. Ms. Butler mentioned that a statistic suggests 0.5% of facial recognition scans still result in misidentification, indicating ongoing issues with accuracy and reliability.

The MP is concerned about the lack of specific legislation for facial recognition technology, which allows private companies to self-regulate. He highlights issues with privacy rights, freedom of assembly, non-discrimination, and data protection. The accuracy of FR systems can lead to misidentifications and wrongful arrests, particularly impacting black people and people of colour due to higher error rates. Mr. Mohamed intervened to discuss instances where companies have falsely claimed automatic deletion of data, citing Google's incognito browsing mode as an example.

He expressed concern about the lack of legislation and firm frameworks for facial recognition technology, emphasizing the importance of 'without fear or favour' principle. He highlighted potential issues such as unfair treatment and the need for transparency in implementing the technology. James McMurdock urged caution regarding assumptions about racial disparity in the use of facial recognition technology. He suggested that it would be remiss to make such claims without full certainty.

I support the use of live facial recognition technology in policing but emphasised the need for safeguards to protect human rights. I highlighted that the PSNI is exploring the potential of this technology and intends to establish a working group with stakeholders to ensure proper implementation. Jim Shannon also mentioned concerns about false positives and the impact on individuals' reputations.

Shocked by the potential misuse of live facial recognition technology in Leicester, Shockat Adam called for stringent legislation before proceeding. He cited concerns about accuracy, racial profiling, and civil liberties violations, noting that the technology disproportionately affects women, people of colour, and disabled individuals. Agrees that this technology could further alienate minority communities, as happened with the Muslim community and Prevent strategy, causing division and mistrust of the police.

I have worked on this issue for many years and observed the first deployments of live facial recognition by the Metropolitan police. The unlegislated use of facial recognition technology is incredibly worrying, as there is no real scrutiny or legislation in place to regulate its use. I tabled a written question asking about putting regulation and legislation behind the police use of live facial recognition.