UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Policing minister Sarah Jones said Labour will consult on live facial recognition use in England, setting rules and addressing bias and public concerns.
As reported by The Guardian, At the party’s annual conference, Sarah Jones said Labour will seek public input on live facial recognition before expanding its use across England.
Activists warn that a weak legal framework lets police run facial recognition at biased low settings, impacting ethnic communities and women.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission said the police’s use of facial recognition was unlawful and in violation of European guidelines.
What did Sarah Jones say about setting rules for facial recognition use?
Addressing the Tony Blair Institute fringe meeting in Liverpool, Sarah Jones stated,
“We need to put some parameters around what we can use facial recognition for.”
She said,
“There has been some advice on how we use it. But we need to go further to make sure it’s clear when it should be used and when it shouldn’t be used, to put some structure around it.”
Ms Jones stated,
“Because there isn’t really much of a structure around what it’s used for at the moment. We need to look at whether that’s enough and whether we need to do more.”
The Croydon MP said shadow home secretary Chris Philp backed facial recognition after its South London use.
She said,
“Chris Philp is very keen on it and talks about it all the time as well. And what we have seen from Croydon is that it works.”
Ms Jones stated,
“We just need to make sure it’s clear what it’s going to be useful for going forward, if we are going to use it more, if we do want to roll it out across the country, what are the parameters?”
The policing minister said,
“Let’s make sure people understand that it’s a conversation we need to have, because people have raised it as an issue, both parliamentarians and the public, and they want to understand how this is going to be used.”
She said,
“We are going to consult over it. It is going to be very important in the future. It is something that started under the last government and something we think they got right.”
When questioned about worries of racial bias, Ms Jones responded,
“I think the technology has improved over the years that it has been used and it is now broadly accurate.”
She added,
“I think we can reassure people … we have used it to catch hundreds of dangerous criminals. But of course we need to make sure that it is being used in a correct way.”
What did civil liberty groups urge the Met police to do after LFR misidentification?
A civil rights organization called on the Metropolitan Police to halt facial recognition use after Shaun Thompson filed a legal challenge.
Thompson, a Black British man, was wrongly flagged as a criminal by LFR, detained by officers, and asked to provide his fingerprints.
What did South Wales Police say about the safety and fairness of LFR use?
Chief Superintendent Tim Morgan, of South Wales Police, stated,
“Our priority is to keep the public safe and this technology continues to help us achieve that. We understand the concerns which are raised about the use of live facial recognition technology and we use any new technology ethically and spend time and effort making sure it’s deployed in line with all legislation and guidance.”
He added,
“The level of oversight and independent scrutiny means that we are now in a stronger position than ever before to be able to demonstrate that our use of facial recognition technology is fair, legitimate, ethical and proportionate.”
How many arrests have police made using live facial recognition?
The Metropolitan Police and South Wales report early success in deploying live facial recognition.
In 12 months, the Met used LFR to make 580 arrests, including 52 registered sex offenders, for crimes from rape to robbery.
Key facts about the live facial recognition
Live Facial Recognition is rapidly expanding, with England and Wales seeing scans double to 4.7 million in a year. About 75% of police forces globally use the technology, while Belgium and Luxembourg have banned it.
Its growth raises privacy and bias concerns, as clear legal frameworks are mostly absent. Campaigners warn of mass surveillance and push for proper regulations worldwide.