BRITAIN FACIAL RECOGNITION BAN
Malcolm Brabant: Families heading for the waterfront at Swansea in south Wales
didn’t take much notice of a police van parked on the grass. But officers
inside were paying extremely close attention to everyone passing by. This was
the latest test of controversial facial recognition cameras scanning the crowds
to check if anyone matched images of suspects on police wanted lists. The public
reaction?
Man: It’s a little bit invasive because I wasn’t aware of it. So if I’m
thinking about it, then it’s what makes me feel a little bit awkward.
Woman: I think it’s fine as long as you’ve got
nothing to hide. No problem with it really. If they’re looking for somebody
like a terrorist or something like that, it’s going to be easier to find them
in a crowd.
Man: I think it depends which side of the line of legality that you
sit. If you do shady things then obviously you would not want that to happen,
but if you sit my side of the legal line, which is the honest side, then I
don’t think it’ll ever be used.
Ed Bridges: This isn’t just about having your image captured in the way that
we all do everyday by CCTV.
Malcolm Brabant: Ed Bridges, an office worker and former local politician in south
Wales, has filed a suit against the region’s police challenging facial
recognition’s legality.
Ed Bridges: This is about actual unique data that’s unique to you and once the
state has that I think we should all be worried about how they will control and
manage that data.
Malcolm Brabant: Bridges sued after he was filmed participating in a demonstration
against the arms trade.
Ed Bridges: It’s become pretty apparent that the fundamental issue is that
the technology has been developed quicker than the law has been able to keep up
with it. At the very least I think what we can expect to see from this is the
law being forced to catch up. So, at a minimum, I think that there will be much
tougher regulation and much clearer guidance about how facial recognition
technology is used.
Malcolm Brabant: South Wales Police rejected our requests for an interview but
referred us to its youtube channel and statements in
support of the technology from the Deputy Chief Constable Richard Lewis.
Richard Lewis: As the technology evolves and it is doing so at present at an
incredible rate, we need to adapt with it, and the way the police can assure to
remain effective at preventing and reducing crime. Facial recognition
technology will enable us to search, scan, and monitor images and video, a
range of offender databases, leading to faster and more accurate identification
of persons of interest allowing us to build a better picture of their movements
and whereabouts as well as enabling direct intervention and potentially
arrest.
Malcolm Brabant: South Wales may be continuing its facial recognition tests, but
other forces across the UK have suspended theirs pending the outcome of the
lawsuit. In London, the Metropolitan Police have been testing a system made by
the Japanese company NEC. But a recent independent study into those tests found
that it wrongly identified innocent people as criminals in four out of every
five cases.
Professor Pete Fussey: In ideal conditions, it
has proven to be quite effective, the problem is the real world and the world outside
is not an ideal condition, lighting changes, people don’t look directly at
cameras, people look in profile and so on.
Malcolm Brabant: The report’s co-author, Criminologist Professor Pete Fussey has raised concerns about potential miscarriages of
justice.
Professor Pete Fussey: There’s
a real mess in terms of the regulatory landscape and that needs to be resolved.
The reason for that is it biometrically processes people’s data as they pass
by, it links it to databases and so on. So because it’s more intrusive,
therefore you have to have a higher standard of oversight, you have to have a
higher standard of authorization.
Malcolm Brabant: This is footage of the Metropolitan Police testing the technology
during London’s annual Notting Hill Carnival. Senior
officers said they were disappointed by what they termed the negative and
unbalanced tone of Professor Fussey’s report. And
declared that facial recognition had the potential to help officers locate
criminals wanted for serious and violent offences and the exploitation of
children. But UK Human rights groups like Liberty believe the technology should
be banned.
Hannah Couchman: Facial recognition has no place on our streets. It’s feeding in to
a wider web of surveillance that the police and the state might use against us
and its mass surveillance on an enormous scale. This technology is enormously
dangerous to modern democracy.
Malcolm Brabant: Hannah Couchman is Liberty’s lead Spokeswoman on facial
recognition.
Hannah Couchman: it’s very difficult to understand what the outer bounds of this
technology would be. It poses a real threat to our rights and our ability to
live in a society where we feel free to move around and are protected from state
power.
Zak Doffman: What’s happened is the privacy lobby has taken the statistics and
they’ve skewed them to create a narrative in the media which is a misleading
narrative.
Malcolm Brabant: Zak Doffman heads a company, Digital
Barriers, specialising in facial recognition.
Zak Doffman:
What isn’t up for debate is whether or not the
technology works because it does work. It’s incredibly accurate. It’s
significantly more accurate at recognizing people from a large watch list than
a human ever could be for example.
Malcolm Brabant: Doffman says although facial recognition technology is far superior to
standard CCTV cameras, it still needs a helping
hand.
Zak Doffman:
If you put poor imagery into a database then
that will misidentify against lots of people because the computer can’t work it
out anymore than if I gave you a grainy black and
white photo and asked you to go out in the street and find somebody, you’d be
picking out all kinds of people. The computer will do the same thing. So you
need to be very clear that the imagery you use in your system against which to
recognize people is of high quality and customers, law enforcement agencies,
are starting to better understand that now.
Malcolm Brabant: Andy Trotter, the former head of Britain’s transport police, says
officers need all the help they can get to hunt down terrorists.
Andy Trotter: Human interaction doesn’t always work well. The number of people
involved in tracking one person could range between 40 to 60 police officers or
other operators and then you could be unsuccessful.
Malcolm Brabant: This is the immediate aftermath of the June 2017 London Bridge
attack in which three Islamists drove a van into pedestrians, then leapt out
and began stabbing passers by. Eight people were
killed. Andy Trotter says cases like this offer justification for facial
recognition.
Andy Trotter: Here in London we’ve had the London Bridge attack, the Westminster
Bridge attack, we’ve also had in manchester, the
arena attack there with many, many people killed and injured. The suspects
involved in that, the people who were guilty of those offenses were often known
by the authorities. Had they been in some database, had they been picked up by
cameras beforehand, we may have been able to prevent those atrocities and that
would definitely be a price worth paying.
Malcolm Brabant: Britain’s current Conservative government is very keen for the
police and security services to add facial recognition technology to their
armories. Ministers say they’re aware of the concerns and they understand the
need for maintaining public confidence and trust and they’ve given assurances
to Parliament that the government is urgently reviewing the legal environment
in which facial recognition technology exists.
Malcolm Brabant: Despite the government’s position, some conservative MPs are
calling for police use of all facial recognition to be stopped until Parliament
has had a chance to debate the issue and establish some relevant laws. Facial
recognition entrepreneur Zak Doffman agrees.
Zak Doffman: Facial recognition should not be everywhere. It should not be
looking for everybody. It shouldn't be used in an ad hoc way in the commercial
world. It should be regulated and should be used in control conditions. But
when it’s used properly, it’s a fantastic tool.
Malcolm Brabant: The plaintiff suing the South Wales Police begs to differ.
Ed Bridges: Even in the UK or the U.S., it’s not as though you have to look
very hard to find examples of police overstepping their brief in terms of how
they use data that they might have on citizens. Now they might not do that
often and they might not always do it deliberately, but it does happen. And so
making sure that there is a robust regulatory regime is something that is in
the public’s interest and the police’s interest so that we can tell when aline has been crossed and we know where the line is.
##
|
TIMECODE |
LOWER
THIRD |
1 |
1:35 |
ED BRIDGES CIVIL LIBERTIES CAMPAIGNER |
2 |
1:41 |
(COURTESY) AIMETIS FACE RECOGNITION |
3 |
2:03 |
(COURTESY) SOUTH WALES POLICE |
4 |
2:06 |
RICHARD LEWIS SOUTH WALES POLICE |
5 |
2:08 |
(COURTESY) SOUTH WALES POLICE |
6 |
2:35 |
(COURTESY) NEC NEOFACE |
7 |
3:28 |
PETER FUSSEY CRIMINOLOGIST |
8 |
4:07 |
HANNAH COUCHMAN HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE |
9 |
4:49 |
ZAK DOFFMAN ENTREPRENEUR |
10 |
4:57 |
(COURTESY) DIGITAL BARRIERS |
11 |
5:43 |
ANDY TROTTER BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE (RET.) |
12 |
6:37 |
SWANSEA, WALES MALCOLM BRABANT SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT |
13 |
7:16 |
ZAK DOFFMAN ENTREPRENEUR |
14 |
7:36 |
ED BRIDGES CIVIL LIBERTIES CAMPAIGNER |