Face ID: A Useful Resource or a Source of Concern? The Subtle Integration of Facial Recognition in Law Enforcement

The future is arriving ahead of schedule in Croydon. While it may not initially seem like the UK’s forefront, North End is a pedestrian-friendly high street filled with typical pawn shops, fast-food restaurants, and a blend of branded clothing stores. It’s anticipated that this area will host one of the UK’s first permanent fixed facial recognition cameras.

Digital images of passersby will be captured discreetly and processed to derive biometric data, which includes facial measurements. This data will be rapidly compared against a watchlist via artificial intelligence, and a match will trigger an alert that might lead to an arrest.

As per the latest violence reduction strategy from the South London Borough, North End and its adjacent streets are identified as “major crime hotspots.” However, they do not rank among the most hazardous routes in the capital.

The crime rate here is the 20th worst among the 32 London Boroughs, excluding the City of London. Plans to launch permanent cameras for a trial phase later this summer are not an emergency measure; instead, North End and nearby London Roads might soon see more surveillance.

When approached about the surveillance initiative, most shopkeepers and visitors in the North End were unaware of the police’s plans or the underlying technology.

For many, the cameras appear as just another form of street furniture alongside signs promoting safe cycling. While some express concern, others reference studies indicating widespread exhaustion of the public facing rising crime rates.

The police began experimenting with facial recognition cameras in the UK and Wales in 2016. Recent documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and police statistics shared with the Guardian reveal substantial growth in usage over the last year. This technology is evolving from a niche tool to a regular component of police strategies.

Last year, police scanned almost 4.7 million faces using live facial recognition cameras, with deployments more than doubling in 2023. In 2024, live facial recognition vans were utilized at least 256 times, up from 63 the previous year.

There’s speculation that mobile units of 10 live facial recognition vans may operate throughout the country.

Meanwhile, civil servants collaborate with law enforcement to develop a new national facial recognition system called strategic facial matchers. This platform will enable searches through various databases, including custody images and immigration files.

“The implementation of this technology could become a common sight in city centres and transit hubs across England and Wales,” states one funding document submitted by the South Wales police to the Home Department and released by Metropolitan Police under FOI.

Activists warn that this technology may disrupt everyday public life by subjecting individuals to impromptu identity checks facilitated by extensive facial recognition systems. Advocates of the technology acknowledge its risks but emphasize its importance for safety.

Recently, David Scheneller, a 73-year-old registered sex offender from Lewisham, who had served nine years for 21 offenses, was sentenced to two years in prison for breaching probation terms.

Officers were alerted by the live facial recognition cameras to Scheneller walking alone with his six-year-old child.

“He was on the watchlist due to his compliance conditions,” said Lindsay Chiswick, Metropolitan’s Intelligence Director and advisor to the National Police Chief of Facial Recognition.

“He formed a relationship with his mother over time and began picking up his daughter from school. If something went wrong that day, he was aware of the repercussions. This exemplifies how police could track him. Without facial recognition, recognizing him would have posed a challenge.”

Many see this as a compelling argument, but critics raise concerns about the unanticipated ramifications as law enforcement adopts technology without legislative guidance.

Madeline Stone from the NGO Big Brother Watch, who has observed mobile camera deployments, reported witnessing misidentifications of schoolchildren in uniforms undergoing “long, humiliating, and unnecessary police stops,” where they were compelled to verify their identities and provide fingerprints.

In these instances, the affected individuals were young Black boys, leaving them frightened and distressed, she noted.

“The effectiveness diminishes as the threshold rises,” Stone added. “The police might not prefer employing it in specific environments. There are no legal mandates requiring them to do so. The notion that police could unilaterally create their own guidelines for usage is truly alarming.”

A judicial review was initiated by Londoner Sean Thompson, with backing from Big Brother Watch, after he was wrongly identified as a person of interest due to the technology and detained for 30 minutes upon returning from a volunteer shift with the anti-knife initiative Street Father.

Additionally, Dr. Dara Murray, tasked with an independent evaluation of the trials by the Met in 2019, highlights the potential “chilling” effect this technology might have on society, suggesting that considerations must go beyond just the technology’s implementation.

“It’s akin to police tailing you, recording your interactions, where you go, how often, and for how long,” he remarked. “I believe most would be uncomfortable with such reality. Democracy thrives on dissent and discourse; if surveillance stifles that, it risks entrenching the status quo and limiting future opportunities.”

Live facial recognition is being utilized to apprehend individuals for traffic violations, growing cannabis, and neglecting community orders. Is this truly justified?

Fraser Sampson, former biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner in England and Wales until his position was dissolved in October 2023, currently serves as a non-executive director for FaceWatch, the leading UK firm in retail security systems designed to prevent shoplifting.

While he acknowledges the technology’s potential, he expresses concern that independent regulations concerning surveillance haven’t kept pace with its deployment by the state.

Sampson commented: “There’s an abundance of information about the technology’s functionalities, yet in practical terms—its application, the reason for its use, and the avenues for challenges or complaints—those clarity elements seem lacking.”

Chiswick noted her understanding of the concerns while recognizing the potential advantages of regulatory measures. The Met is cautiously making “small strides” that are continually reviewed, she stated. With limited resources, law enforcement needs to adapt and capitalize on the possibilities brought by AI. They are cognizant of potential “chilling effects” on society and have made it clear that cameras will not be deployed in protest areas.

“Will this become common? I cannot say,” Chiswick remarked. “We need to approach that assumption with caution. There are numerous possible scenarios; areas like the West End? It’s conceivable, instead of the static trials we’re conducting in Croydon, we could utilize it there. However, that’s not our current plan.”

She added: “I believe the integration of technology, data, and AI will continue to rise in the coming years, as personally, that’s how we can improve our operations.”