Rights groups say UK’s new policing bill opens door to biometric matching with drivers database. Georgia’s privacy watchdog launches probe into facial recognition surveillance of protestors, while a network of human rights organizations propose new rules for the technology’s use noting that law enforcement must strike a balance between using effective tools and rights protection.
A network of human rights organizations has called for a high level of transparency in law enforcement’s use of facial recognition, including disclosing the source codes of the systems’ algorithms and the data used for training to the people targeted by the technology.
In its report published in February, the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO) argues that states have legitimate interests in using effective law enforcement tools. But they also must strike a balance between effectiveness and rights protection – including holding accountable the developers, manufacturers and users of facial recognition systems.
The 15-member rights group alliance calls for a thorough re-evaluation of police use of facial recognition and has developed a list of principles for establishing accountability and mitigating harm. The first on the list of recommendations is establishing specific laws regulating facial recognition use by law enforcement.
INCLO gathers organizations hailing from the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa and others, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the U.S. and Liberty in the UK. Both countries currently lack specific laws related to law enforcement’s use of the technology.
Other principles include naming an independent oversight body and carrying out impact assessments and public consultations. This includes publicizing the technical specifications of facial recognition systems, including a detailed breakdown of hardware and software components as well as error rates.
“In the interests of democracy and the right to a fair trial, we must know which surveillance tools may lead to us being arrested or accused,” the group says.
Law enforcement agencies are also advised to conduct risk assessments for vendor lock-ins and favor vendors that maximize open standards and interoperability, according to the report titled Eyes on the Watchers: Challenging the Rise of Police Facial Recognition.
The rights group alliance argues against the use of live facial recognition technology (FRT), such as the ones used by the London’s Metropolitan Police, U.S. retail chain Rite Aid, or city authorities in Moscow, Russia. The technology, whether it is live or retrospective, should also not be used to identify categories such as whistleblowers, journalists, protestors and people with no link to a crime.
“Even if all policing FRT systems were accurate 100 percent of the time, the risks for people’s fundamental human rights would multiply significantly”, INCLO notes. “FRT systems risk stripping people of their anonymity, reducing them to walking license plates and tilting the power dynamic inherent in police-civilian interactions further towards police.”
Facial recognition should be used as an investigative lead only while law endorsement authorities are advised to publish annual reports providing statistics on misidentification, the report adds.
Concern UK driver license data will be used for facial recognition
The UK government has denied that the proposed Crime and Policing Bill will use data from driving licenses for facial recognition.
It is “categorically untrue” that the database under the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) would be accessed by the police for facial recognition purposes, a Home Office spokesperson told Computer Weekly this week.
“These provisions will have no impact on facial recognition,” they said.
In February, the government proposed expanding police powers in the country through the revisited Crime and Policing Bill. The legislation contains a range of measures to address “anti-social behavior,” including banning face coverings and using pyrotechnics during protests.
One of its most controversial segments, Clause 95, enables police access to driving license information in the DVLA database, which holds more than 52 million driver records. While the bill makes no explicit reference to facial recognition technology, human rights groups such as Open Rights Group and Big Brother Watch argue that the access could be used for 1:N facial recognition matching.
“This is a huge, disproportionate expansion of police surveillance powers that will place the majority of Britons in a digital police line-up without their consent,” the organization says in a brief published Tuesday. “If passed, Clause 95 could enable these facial images to be subverted into one of the biggest biometric database ever created in the UK for police access.”
Aside from Big Brother Watch, the brief was signed by seven other organizations, including Privacy International, Liberty and Index on Censorship.
The groups argue the currently proposed Crime and Policing Bill contains the same powers that the previous Conservative government put forward in 2023 as part of the now-discarded Criminal Justice Bill. At the time, Policing Minister Chris Philp suggested that the legislation would allow law enforcement, including the National Crime Agency (NCA), to “access driving license records to do a facial recognition search.”
Facial recognition surveillance of anti-government demonstrators
Georgia’s data watchdog has launched two inspections into the country’s use of facial recognition for surveilling anti-government demonstrators.
The Personal Data Protection Service initiated the probes into the Ministry of Internal Affairs in February after complaints were filed by the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA). The organization has accused the Ministry of targeted surveillance of specific individuals during a protest that involved road blockages.
The first investigation will look into the legality of biometric data processing conducted using 112 CCTV cameras situated close to the Georgian Parliament in central Tbilisi. The second probe will examine the legality of biometric data processing by the Ministry of Internal Affairs through a special electronic program in the process of administrative proceedings, according to Business Media Georgia.
Protests in the Central Asian country have been ongoing since November last year after the ruling Georgian Dream party announced it was backing off from EU accession plans. Police and ruling party-affiliated groups have engaged in widespread violence against protesters and journalists while the government has also been issuing high fines for blocking streets.
The unrest has put Georgia’s surveillance capabilities under public scrutiny: The country has installed more than 4,300 smart cameras across the nation. The government’s lack of transparency is now opening questions on surveilling dissidents and protestors.
Article Topics
biometric identification | biometrics | facial recognition | police | video surveillance