"There is virtually nothing in the Metropolitan Police policy to constrain where it deploys live facial recognition (LFR), the High Court has heard during a judicial review into whether the force is using the technology lawfully. Brought by anti-knife campaigner Shaun Thompson, who was wrongfully identified by the Met's system and subjected to a prolonged stop as a result, and privacy group Big Brother Watch,"
"In particular, they stressed their view that, in practice, the policy essentially allows the Met to deploy the technology in any part of London they choose, because the only criteria limiting where the Met can deploy it is whether it's a "permitted location". The three situations where the Met can use LFR are in "crime hotspots", including "access routes" to those hotspots; outside public events or critical national infrastructure under "protective security operations"; and locations based on intelligence about "the likely location [of] ... sought persons"."
Shaun Thompson was wrongfully identified by the Metropolitan Police's live facial recognition system and subjected to a prolonged stop. Big Brother Watch joined Thompson in a judicial review questioning whether the Met's use of LFR meets legal standards and includes meaningful safeguards. The Met's policy limits deployment only to "permitted locations" while defining three broad use cases: crime hotspots and access routes, protective security operations outside events or critical infrastructure, and locations based on intelligence about likely locations of sought persons. The force regularly uses watchlists of 16,000–17,000 images and mainly relies on the crime hotspot approach, raising concerns about weak links between who is targeted and where cameras are placed.
Read at ComputerWeekly.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]