Last week, Met police chief Cressida Dick defended the force’s use of facial recognition in London. We asked our readers what they thought about the technology in its current state.
Dick was seeking to dispel what she perceives as several myths regarding the facial recognition techniques used by the Met. The commissioner claimed the LFR (live facial recognition) system does not store biometric data from the public faces it scans, instead only seeking to match faces to those of serious criminals on a watchlist. When a match is flagged by LFR, it is always up to human officers whether to intervene. Dick also claimed that the technology was proven to not have an ethnic bias.
Met Police start fighting crime with Live Facial Recognition
Scifi Eye: Facial recognition is a future threat
But critics of the technology point to a number of issues. Its current accuracy is under question, with civil liberties group Big Brother Watch claiming that 93 per cent of all those stopped under the Met’s trials were wrongly identified. A recent study from surveillance expert Prof Pete Fussey of Essex University found that the Met’s technology was verifiably accurate just 19 per cent of the time.
The results of our poll indicate just how divisive the issue is, with 31 per cent supporting its current use, but 32 per cent saying privacy must be addressed. Almost one in five (19 per cent) believe the accuracy of the technology needs to improve, while a substantial 15 per cent of respondents oppose the use of facial recognition systems completely. Just 3 per cent chose the ‘none of the above’ option. Needless to say, there was also a panoply of opinions below the line.
“Like so many technical innovations, what is a force for good has also significant capability of being a force for bad,” wrote Nick Cole. “It will be far too easy to misuse and we would not even be aware of its use and incapable of monitoring what it is being used for.”
Les commented: “The police should not deploy this system without government authority and independent scrutiny. The pros & cons must be discussed in Parliament and deployment made dependant upon agreed robust safeguards.”
Others were less concerned about misuse of the technology and viewed it as a natural step in the fight against crime.
“The paranoid amongst us are at it again,” said Steve. “We have speed cameras to catch those speeding – we don’t track and record those not breaking the limits. In the same way, Facial Recognition is a tool to aid catching a limited range of suspected criminals, not to log everyone everywhere.”
Some readers claimed that in comparison to big tech firms and their knowledge of us, LFR was no big deal.
“Compared to what Facebook, Amazon and Google know about us, where we are and have been, about what we are likely to do and about our plans, this is trivial from a ‘big brother’ point of view,” wrote Barry J. “CCTV has helped with crime solving, if this helps then I am all for it. I would sooner a crime fighting organisation e.g. the police, have information about me than a private company which is only in it for profits.”
It’s a debate that will no doubt continue for a long time to come, and our comments section will remain open for Engineer readers to air their views. As ever, all comments will be moderated.
As ever if we are not committing a crime then we have nothing to fear. However , the authority to use this technology should be limited to certain authorities
such as crime prevention and border control .
It can’t be un-invented but its the first part of a slippery slope. Governments and others can’t be trusted to use the technology safely, the seriously bad Guys will just avoid it.
If you say well we can trust our UK government, then you are ignoring history. Just look at Netherlands where they had a register of peoples details including race, for good purposes – The Nazi rolled in and used the data for extremely evil purposes – people died.
When dealing with personal data, the worst case scenario is the data will eventually be used by people that are out to harm you from discrimination to lining you up against a wall.
Dick & Co. literally operate in the past. Things have had to have happened before they swing into (re)action.
This technology-driven policy is a classic case of the triumph of stakeholder interests as opposed to the public interest, which is to lower the incidence of crime (aka bad behaviour)
A cctv camera on a pole will not change behaviour, whereas the knowledge that you might be clocked by a patrolling Policeman will raise the odds of being caught behaving badly sufficiently to make it not a good bet. Ask any kid brought up in a village in the ’50s and earlier with a local bobby.
Technology can be conveniently used to separate power from responsibility. Dick’s decision on Menendez was a good example.
I am total agreement with using technology to fight crime if that is what it is going to be used for and not spying on people going about their daily business. There is a problem though with hoodies and the facial garments worn by some religious groups. These people would get around the facial recognition system and if they are allowed to carry on wearing such garment what ios to stop criminals wearing them rending the FRS useless. I am in favour of banning head garments that hide the face. It is a huge security risk.
Unfortunately, the “bad-guys” have always hidden their faces, (masks etc.), which makes this a bit limited. However, the adage that “those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear” seems to apply more generally. Electronic surveillance is part of modern life but “Big Brother” must be controlled at all costs.
I have an addendum to this. Instead of a LFRS recognising a face of a criminal which will encourage criminals or would be criminals to hide their faces how about react to people who’s faces you can’t see. That way it will encourage people to show their face instead of hiding them.
I have no problem with LFR, nothing to hide, nothing to fear from being ‘mistakenly’ stopped by law enforcement. I also take the point that more visible Police presence on our streets would be as much a deterrent to crime as LFR to the more criminal element of our society provided that hoodies and the like are forbidden particularly on public transport.
If you haven’t commited a crime why do you think it’s acceptable for the police to monitor you in public going about your lawful business ? The mantra that “if you’ve done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear” is naive at best and something the state would love you to believe.
Maybe look at the examples of black youths being disproportionally stopped and searched by the Police and being arrested if they don’t cooperate. And, think of innocent people being arrested if they, quite legally, don’t wish to be ‘filmed’ and cover their face. If you truly believe you have nothing to fear then you won’t complain when the Police decide to enter your home just to see what you’re up to …
This is another example of the Police making up their own laws rather than enforcing the actual laws of the land, slippery slope indeed.
The technology doesn’t work – like ‘Lie Detectors’ which the Police also would like to rollout.
The Police cannot be trusted, images will be stored and they will be available to other bodies, this will eventually be linked in with driving licence and passport images.
The rollout of this state surveillance is a matter for Parliament and the courts, not the Police.
All the evidence points to the fact that even when the Police have technology they misuse it and are rarely able to stop crimes.
Cressida Dick has past form when it comes to shooting first and making excuses afterwards.
Many of the above are saying ban facial garments be that the hoodie etc, so then the police will be able to dictate what you wear? Ok, say not allowed to cover the face on public transport, how many have been on a bus in winter, hats and scarves are a necessity. If, this is going to be used, it has to function with society as it is and not an Orwellian nightmare where everyone dresses the same dictated by the state.
Like so many technical innovations what is a force for good, has also significant capability of being a force for bad. It will be far to easy to misuse and we would not even be aware of its use and incpable of monitoring what it is being used for. At least with email and other misusable technologies there is some form of audit trail and awareness of personal intrusion. Hidden cctv cameras are an unknown factor and who will control and manage them at the time of use? Yes those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear – in principle, but this can so easily go wrong. Even DNA isn’t foolproof. Facial recognition is behind the already existing thin edge of the wedge which is getting bigger! 1984!
There are a number of good points made in favour of the technology and if it prevents or captures a perpetrator that has seriously harmed anyone I care about then it has my full support.
Some people’s comments suggest they want the problem solved but only in an idealistic way as opposed to a practical and effective way. See them change their tune when someone close them gets mugged or murdered. Go with technology and support the victims not the criminals.
Fortunately for all of us, 75 years ago, millions of ordinary people were prepared to risk – and in some cases pay with – their lives, in defence of liberty. If increased surveillance makes us safer, why is knife crime going up?
Creepy and Orwellian but unfortunately probably unavoidable.
“does not store biometric data from the public faces it scans” so not biometric data, just all the other data. Who you are and when you were seen where. Except when it gets it wrong, but it’ll store that data anyway.
Time for is all to start wearing face masks or crash helmets!
The Police should not deploy this system without Government authority and independent scrutiny. The pros & cons must be discussed in Parliament and deployment made dependant upon agreed robust safeguards
Knife crime is probably going up because present surveillance is inadequate.
A good case for more facial recognition.
The paranoid amongst us are at it again. We have speed cameras to catch those speeding – we don’t track and record those not breaking the limits. In the same way, Facial Recognition is a tool to aid catching a limited range of suspected criminals, not to log everyone everywhere. And as for disproportionate use against certain ethnic groups – it depends how you measure proportionality. Is it based on population percentage or criminality percentage? As always if you report a crime as being committed by a member of ethnic group A, then why would you look at group B just to maintain an artificial PC balance? Now that is perverse and discriminatory.
Facial recognition has been is use in London for a long time.
It’s interesting that Cressida Dick is commenting on this as she was in charge of the operation that led to the fatal shooting of an unarmed civilian in 2005. The shooting was the result of “mistaken Identity”.
The key issue here is accountability. Most of us will be familiar with the stages of a project where lots of middle and upper management want to be involved and claim credit until something goes wrong.
Computers can’t be held responsible for failures. Accountability for the accuracy and use of the system must be clearly defined at all times. It’s no use having a public enquiry after the event.
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, the Gestapo were acting legally.
Do you have curtains in your house? Why?
I believe your statement is incorrect. ‘suspected criminals’ are currently tracked using existing cameras and ANPR. Also, recall the Salisbury Novichok fiasco where pictures/video taken at the airport was used to track the ‘suspects’. Facial Recognition is just a step upgrade to the systems already being used, and abused, by the authorities and as shown images are stored.
Greater control and transparency is needed. If there is a real need let the Police get authorisation from a magistrate or legal authority, at the moment there are no (legal) controls on the Police.
In the words of Terry Pratchett: ” Vimes didn’t like the phrase ‘The innocent have nothing to fear’, believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like ‘The innocent have nothing to fear’.”
Here’s a timely indication of what can and what will happen ‘when’ LFR data is stored, from the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658111
Compared to what Facebook, Amazon and Google know about us, where we are and have been, about what we are likely to do and about our plans this is trvial from a “big brother” point of view. CCTV has helped with crime solving, if this helps then I am all for it. I would sooner a crime fighting organisation e.g. the police, have information about me than a private company which is only in it for profits. Accuracy of Facial Recognition will improve as the technology matures, like any evolving technology its limitations need to be taken account of when it is being used.
How many people participated in this poll?
520
That is simply not true. We live in an age where even being accused of committing a crime has huge implications, something that is all-too-easy with technologies and systems that generate high volumes of false-positives, no tto mention the costs of investigating red herrings. And that’s before we look into what happens when we have the technologies and systems that can be easily subverted for nefarious purposes by governments that have agendas. History teaches these lessons and we are well advised to heed them.
How many of the objectors to LFR own a mobile phone? This device(phone)is easily tracked not only by it’s usage but by any of the countless apps on it. I frequently use it’s satnav(motorcycle rides)I also use various other apps which reveal exactly where I was,at what speed I was riding,even including “angles of lean” & all because I’m interested in reviewing the data for discussion with friends & family. As I ride,I also enjoy listening to music so have my mobile broadband running enabling me to listen (via bluetooth)to internet radio. There is little need to use expensive systems like LFR (with its poor success rate)when a tweak to the mobile phone regs(registration on purchase of SIM made compulsory,unregistered SIM cannot be used on the mobile networks)would thus enable accurate data on the “person of interest” movements,before,during,after events. Our town centre has CCTV cameras(often looking the wrong way when crimes occur,or unmonitored)The police have ANPR systems already,flagging up illegal motorists instantly. Present monitoring systems could simply be “linked” & the criminals would be caught more quickly. I used to be a regular poster on a PC forum,I recall years ago the magazine mentioning CCTV & the general consensus being “if you aren’t committing crime,you have nothing to fear” This is just as true today as it was all those years ago.
Someone abovce talked about benign speed cameras. He is mistaken, they operate with ANPR and do store and retain the vehicles data, coupling this with facial recognition will helpo identify the driver. We already have photos in the passport and driving licence, blue badge, etc systems and it is a simple matter to link them all together. While the users of this data may be trustworthy (?) at present it does not mean that some organisation in future decides it will be a good idea to do things with that data, for whatever reason. The biggest problem is that we will have no idea of when or if that happens, still less any control over it. Regardless of opinion the potential for misuse remains significant, even with so-called ombudsman or whatever oversight. If someone sometime decides it is on the ‘public’ interest (usually meaning their own) then it will be used. The only way of having any monitoring capability is that everytime we, our families, vehicles, etc, are spotted and identified we are advised of that, and even this can be misused.