The Metropolitan police’s recognition of the value in “some sort of framework or statutory guidance” for live facial recognition is welcome (Live facial recognition cameras may become ‘commonplace’ as police use soars, 24 May). However, it is not just police use of this technology that needs a clear legal framework.
Despite the scale and speed of its expansion, there is still no specific law providing a basis for live facial recognition or other emerging biometric technologies, whether these are used in the public or private sector.
Biometric surveillance is expanding rapidly, not just in policing but across society: in train stations, schools and supermarkets. Newer biometric systems go further, claiming to infer people’s emotional states, raising serious concerns about their accuracy, ethics and legality.
In 2020, the court of appeal – in the UK’s only judgment on live facial recognition to date – found a deployment by South Wales police was unlawful. It identified deficiencies in the legal framework and set out minimum standards for lawful use. Since then, a patchwork of voluntary guidance has emerged.
New research from the Ada Lovelace Institute has found this patchwork is inadequate in practice, creating legal uncertainty, putting fundamental rights at risk and undermining public trust.
Crucially, we find that non-police uses, such as those in the private sector or involving inference, are subject to even fewer safeguards and so stand on far shakier legal ground. Governance is simply not keeping up with technological adoption and advancement.
Policymakers must act. We urgently need new legislation to establish a comprehensive framework covering all forms of biometric surveillance and inference – not just police use – and an independent regulator to oversee and enforce it.
Michael Birtwistle
Associate director, the Ada Lovelace Institute
