Met Police's claims on facial recognition questioned amid community concerns

Community Impact Assessment reveals limited consultation

Claims that the use of live facial recognition tech in Lewisham enjoy widespread support are facing scrutiny.

The Metropolitan Police's claims that the deployment of live facial-recognition (LFR) technology in Lewisham enjoys widespread community support is under question following the release of a community impact assessment (CIA) obtained through a Freedom of Information request.

The CIA, obtained by Computer Weekly, reveals limited direct engagement with residents, contradicting claims that the majority of locals and councillors back the use of the controversial surveillance tool.

LFR technology involves connecting cameras to databases of human images. The camera images can then be compared to those databases to determine whether they are an exact match.

In August 2024, Lewisham councillors criticised the lack of public engagement preceding the deployment of LFR in the area.

Despite these concerns, the Met announced the use of LFR via X just weeks after receiving pushback from local representatives. The Met claimed broad support from residents, business owners and political representatives, citing briefings held at public forums and council meetings as evidence of its engagement efforts.

However, the CIA paints a different picture. The document, which details the Met's engagement activities, makes only a single reference to "residents" in the context of press responses. It acknowledges "mixed opinion" within the community and the potential for opposition to the technology.

The CIA highlights seven meetings held between March and August 2024, including five with council bodies and two public discussions.

While these engagements involved various stakeholders, including the Safer Neighbourhoods Board (SNB) and the Lewisham Independent Advisory Group (IAG) for LFR, concerns persist about the extent of direct resident involvement.

Independent councillor Hau-Yu Tam, a member of the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee, expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of the consultation process. She highlighted the use of leading questions by the Met to promote LFR, rather than seeking genuine feedback and addressing concerns.

Tam criticised the lack of mechanisms for addressing critical comments about LFR and the overrepresentation of certain voices in the consultation process.

She argued that individuals whom the technology is most likely to affect are often excluded or marginalised.

When contacted by Computer Weekly, the Metropolitan Police reiterated its stance on the deployment of LFR technology in Lewisham.

"The Met is committed to making London safer, using data and technology to help identify offenders that pose a risk to our communities," said Lindsey Chiswick, the force's director of performance.

"We continue to engage with and listen to views from a range of voices across Lewisham on our use of LFR technology, including local residents, councillors, local businesses and retailers."

Civil liberties groups have expressed serious concerns about the privacy implications and potential for discriminatory impact of LFR technology.

"You have to properly consult people, giving them a chance to object, to raise concerns and listen to them, rather than tick a box… there's a chance this undermines trust in the police if it's not done properly," said Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch.

The controversy over LFR in Lewisham comes just after MPs held their first-ever debate on the technology in November 2024, eight years after its initial deployment at the Notting Hill Carnival. Lawmakers discussed concerns about bias, privacy violations, and the absence of a clear legal framework.

While opinions on LFR's efficacy varied, MPs agreed on the urgent need for regulation and transparency.

In 2022, a study by the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge, suggested that UK police should not be allowed to use LFR technology at public areas because they are violating ethical standards and human rights laws.