UK MPs unaware of facial recognition tech invading privacy

Rising use of FRT in the UK

Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) has been on the rise in the UK, both in the public and private sectors. The government has expressed its intent to expand the use of FRT, considering it a critical tool for law enforcement and the Home Office. This expansion has raised concerns as FRT’s indiscriminate use threatens individual privacy and fundamental rights, particularly during protests and public gatherings.

How FRT works

FRT involves capturing digital images of individuals’ facial features using cameras, often CCTV cameras, and processing these images to identify or categorize people. It extracts biometric facial data, creates a digital signature, and scans databases or watchlists for matches. FRT can operate in real-time (live FRT) or process facial images retrospectively against a database (retrospective FRT).

UK police forces, including the Metropolitan Police (The Met) and South Wales Police, have been deploying FRT in public spaces since 2016. The Met’s use of FRT at large-scale events and accusations of discrimination have raised concerns about its impact on minority communities. The use of retrospective facial searches by UK police has also seen a significant increase in recent years.

FRT in the private sector

Numerous UK companies, such as Frasers Group, Co-op, and even schools, have reportedly adopted FRT within their premises. Concerns about privacy, accuracy, and discrimination have led to calls for a halt to the technology’s use in private settings. Facewatch, a prominent facial recognition retail security company, has played a significant role in providing FRT solutions to retailers.

MPs’ lack of awareness

70% of MPs do not know if FRT has been used in their constituencies: A majority of MPs expressed ignorance about the presence of FRT in their constituencies, highlighting a significant knowledge gap.

A quarter of MPs incorrectly believe there is a UK law regulating FRT: Despite no specific legislation governing FRT in the UK, a quarter of MPs mistakenly believed that such a law exists, while around a third were unsure.

Over a third of MPs recognize FRT’s threat to human rights: While some MPs expressed well-founded concerns about FRT’s potential for misuse and discrimination, almost half either believed it did not threaten human rights or were uncertain. This lack of awareness is concerning given the documented human rights concerns associated with FRT.

FRT’s threat to human rights

The use of FRT in public spaces in the UK directly interferes with individuals’ rights as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8, guaranteeing the right to a private and family life, requires any interference to be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. However, the deployment of live FRT in public spaces without adequate safeguards fails to meet these requirements.

Additionally, FRT’s widespread use infringes upon other rights, including freedom of association, expression, and assembly, as per Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the ECHR. Legal challenges, such as the Ed Bridges case against South Wales Police, have highlighted violations of privacy rights, data protection laws, and equality laws in the use of FRT.

The UK falling behind

While several countries and regions have taken steps to regulate or ban the use of FRT, the UK appears to be moving in the opposite direction. The European Commission has proposed a regulatory framework for Artificial Intelligence, which includes significant limitations on FRT. Several US cities have banned FRT, and states like Virginia and Vermont have prohibited its use by law enforcement and private companies.

In contrast, the UK’s lack of specific legislation governing FRT in public spaces and the unawareness among MPs indicate a concerning gap between national regulations and international developments.