Government rejects Lords proposals on police facial recognition

The Government urges 'a long-term perspective' on the subject.

The UK Government has decided not to follow most of the recommendations made in the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee's (JHAC) inquiry into police technology, which advocated changing the way law enforcement agencies use AI and algorithmic technologies.

In its official response to the findings, the Government acknowledged the issues raised by the inquiry's conclusions. However, it disagreed with the assertion that new technologies would inevitably overturn social norms or hand over judgement on matters of necessity and proportionality to machines.

The Government added that it is still committed to the idea that humans, not machines, should make important decisions like whether to make an arrest, file charges, launch a prosecution or convict someone.

The JHAC released its findings on 30th March, after a 10-month inquiry into how UK police used algorithmic technology, such as face recognition and different 'prediction' techniques, to fight crime.

It referred to the state of affairs as 'the new Wild West,' characterised by a dearth of strategy, accountability and transparency.

Since its inception, facial recognition technology has faced intense criticism from lawmakers and privacy advocates in different countries. Its opponents cite multiple studies that have found such systems can suffer from race-, age- and ethnicity-related biases, and could lead to human rights abuses.

They also argue that this technology has the potential to become an invasive form of surveillance.

'The use of advanced technologies in the application of the law poses a real and current risk to human rights and to the rule of law,' the JHAC said in its report.

'Unless this is acknowledged and addressed, the potential benefits of using advanced technologies may be outweighed by the harm that will occur and the distrust it will create.'

The Government does not share these views. In its reponse, it said that while the the report 'draws welcome attention to an increasingly important issue,' it is also crucial to have a 'long-term perspective'. For example, previously contentious technologies like fingerprinting and DNA processing are now universally acknowledged and accepted.

It added, 'It is also important to recognise that automation that supports decision making through advanced data analytics is very different from automated decision making. The use of fingerprints and DNA to help solve crimes through identifying and eliminating suspects is widely accepted.'

The Government believes that greater emphasis should be put on the advantages of automation, given the demand on law enforcement to combat crime.

As an example it pointed to South Wales Police, where the use of retrospective face recognition saves an estimated £230,000 annually.

'Criminals will use any technology which helps their illegal activity. The police need to be able to adapt quickly and trial new technologies to keep pace. The public want the police to fight crime effectively and efficiently, and they want criminals held to account when they commit crimes. Opinion polls consistently demonstrate that police use of technologies such as live facial recognition, which are considered controversial by some, have strong public support,' the Government said.

It further added that although MPs establish the legislative framework giving police their rights and responsibilities, it is ultimately up to the police to decide how to make the greatest use of tools like AI and predictive modelling to safeguard the public.

The use of algorithmic technologies by UK police is already governed by a "web of legislation," policing minister Kit Malthouse told the JHAC in January 2022.

He said that a "principles-based" framework is preferable to establishing legal rules, because there are always areas of nuance and circumstance that cannot be accounted for in law.

Regarding the JHAC's recommendations of creating a national oversight body and certification systems, the Government said it was not convinced by the reasons put up and while certification may be useful in certain situations, it can also lead to false confidence and be prohibitively expensive.