Yets get facial biometric surveillance regulations.

The government has just put out a consultation on biometric surveillance!

Please respond!

For an idea of what to say, look here: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/campaigns/stop-facial-recognition/#respond.

Or fill out the form here:https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/facial-recognition/.

I said:

1. Yes. I believe that there should be strong laws and oversight in regulating the police’s usage of biometric data, as we have seen very agregious abuse of this in the US by ICE, in an effort to racially profile and target people based on the colour of their skin. I also believe that it should be a reasonable expectation of a free and liberal democracy to be able to exist freely in a public space without surveillance and monitoring, as if we were in a prison - despite our innocence. I believe that the oversight from a strong legal framework would protect individuals from abuse, be that institutional or from a single officer with a vendetta against a specific individual.

2. Yes. I believe that it is impossible to infer emotion accurately. Any attempt to infer such emotion would discriminate against the neuro-diverse people, who may not show emotion in the typical way. I believe that inferring actions is implausible without a highly invasive level of surveillance - and even then difficult - that could lead to innocent people being detained for serious crimes. This could institutionalise and automate the issues we have seen in the us with ‘SWATting’, where people maliciously call the police to accuse someone of violent crime. The victim is often murdered by police believing them to be a dangerous criminal. This could trigger the response, calling for violent action against innocent people

3. Yes. With the exception of within cities, a person’s car is their identity, all of their movements can be tracked by ANPR readers. This would discriminate against suburban and rural communities. ANPR technologies have been aggregiously abused in the US by ICE. The usage of technology to identify clothing of individuals leads to the risk of increase false posisitives as many people wear similar items of clothing. Particularly, people wearing similar items of clothing may congregate together - as they share similar cultural sensitivities. This risks identifying victims as attackers and could flood police with incorrect warnings. This could have the afformentioned affect.

4. Yes. Parliament needs to legislate to shape the future, not just the present. The fundamental issue is till the same of the protection of individual privacy and dignity. If not included companies and police departments will just innovate faster than parliament can legislate (if it even would in a authoritarian potential future). Not legislating future technologies despite the same fundamental issue is leaving the door open to an evil that needs the door slammed shut on it.

5. Yes. Justice is our most valuable instrument. If justice is not protected through ensuring fair access to evidence and not an irrational belief in an infallible algorithmic system (an easy mistake to make), we do not have justice. We have tyranny. We need to recognise that the police and justice system is the most powerful influence government can exert over individual liberty and life. But this sword is double edged, it can protect people from murderers - but it can also inflict brutality on those deemed a threat to authority, be that political opponents and dissidents, ethnic minorities, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community or many other marginalised groups of people. To ensure a fair justice system, we need to humane and decent practice not just from the population but from also those who exert authority over us.

6. I would like two further considerations on the interference with individuals right to privacy, one is an existance of a court ordered warrant for such searches of data.

The other is the external access to such information, for instance if a contractor was collecting this biometric information, whether the contractor utilised that data for commercial purposes and therefore may be seen to be outside the scope of scrutiny.

7. I believe that a court ordered warrant for investigation in serious crime should be a requirement, to prevent abuse against protestors. Further, I believe that it is critical for internal oversight to occur - such as having special training for those working on this aspect of the case. Further, officers should be prevented from reviewing data individually and should always be working with a peer to analyse biometric data. The officers and groups working together on this should be carefully selected (possibly with the help of a psychologist) to prevent coercion within these groups. This access to such data should be as limited as possible and kept on a need-to-know basis.

8. For minor crimes, the risk to harm of individuals is relatively low. This is in contrast to the risk of fabrication for minor crimes, where the case has a higher risk of falsification for abuse by the officer. Further, the risk of false positives may be too high and cause extra data that police have to sort through to get to the actual crimes and dangers to people’s life and liberty.

9. I believe that only crimes where there is an imminent threat to life and liberty are reasonable for such data to be accessed. This includes murder, assault and kidnapping cases.

10. Agree. I believe that for imminent threats, the police should have a senior authorising officer - like they have for the use of firearms. For any retroactive action, a court ordered warrant should be sought.

11. Yes, all retroactive data access should be sought through the courts. These cases should be reviewed by a parliamentary oversight group to ensure fairness. All individuals whose data has been accessed should be notified once the immediate risk is over/the investigation has resolved and have the right to sue if they believe that their data has been access illegally. The practices in informing individuals should also be reviews by a parliamentary oversight committee.

12. No. No. No. This poses a serious safeguarding risk, as it violates the confidentially expectation we have in government institutions and risks exposure of private data to potentially malicious police officers or even non-malicious police officers who accidentally leak personal data about the suspect.

13. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I believe that this should not be considered, but if this is allowed: this should only be accessible through a court ordered warrant, with parliamentary oversight to ensure a fair trial, all who are searched in this way should have the right to sue and I expect government financial support in such legal action.

14. Disagree. The courts and a parliamentary oversight committee must have authority to oversee this. In the case of legal action against the police brought by an individual, the government should provide financial assistance and access to records. Relating to the case.

15. Yes *a bunch. There should be financial, legal and evidential assistance to individuals taking legal action against a police department.

16. Agree.

17. Determining the abuse of such technologies at both an individual and institutional level. I have previously stated such rules. Testing should be taken regaulrily for compliance.

Stop biometric surveillance!!