[ad_1]
London police have recently utilized advanced AI-powered cameras in the suburb of Croydon to conduct live facial recognition (LFR) scans on unsuspecting individuals, as reported by AFP. This technology, which creates biometric facial signatures and matches them against a watchlist of suspects, has resulted in the arrest of 10 individuals for various crimes, including threats to kill, bank fraud, theft, and possession of a crossbow.
The success of these trials has prompted the UK government to advocate for the wider implementation of facial recognition technology as a crime-fighting tool. Policing minister Chris Philp emphasized its high priority and highlighted its significant potential, citing recent deployments that have led to arrests that would have otherwise been impossible, with no false alerts reported.
However, this call for expedited roll-out has sparked outrage among some parliamentarians who are concerned about potential abuse and invasion of privacy. They urge the government’s privacy regulator to take assertive regulatory action to prevent misuse of the technology. In a letter, they expressed apprehension about the mass processing of sensitive biometric data without people’s knowledge, arguing that it poses a serious risk to the rights of the British public and could transform public spaces into environments of constant surveillance by corporations, and the government.
Lawmakers further allege that the technology has resulted in more than 65 wrongful interventions by the police due to false matches. They cited an incident involving the arrest of a 14-year-old boy in school uniform who was eventually released after his fingerprints were taken. Concerns were also raised about the use of facial recognition technology by private companies, which they believe transfers power from ordinary individuals to corporations, potentially leading to serious consequences for those who are misidentified. These consequences could include restrictions on essential purchases, intrusive interventions, or dangerous confrontations with security personnel.
Civil liberties groups argue that the technology is oppressive and incompatible with a democratic society. Comparisons have been drawn to George Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” depicting a totalitarian state under constant surveillance. Activists view this technology as an Orwellian mass surveillance tool that reduces individuals to walking ID cards.
Critics are particularly concerned about the unmonitored power given to the police, especially considering the increased powers of arrest over protests granted through the Public Order Act. They highlight the lack of oversight in the composition of police watchlists, which have reportedly included protestors and individuals with mental health issues who are not suspected of any offenses.
Opponents stress the need for legal and technical oversight to ensure responsible and ethical use of off-the-shelf versions of these tools. They question whether police forces have the necessary resources and capacity for such oversight at present.
While the Home Office interior ministry asserts that data protection, equality, and human rights laws strictly govern the use of the technology, opponents remain unsatisfied. Previous attempts to introduce compulsory identity cards in the UK have encountered strong resistance. In June 2023, the European Parliament voted to ban live facial recognition in public spaces, and some UK lawmakers who oppose the technology seek even stricter measures.
Conservative MP David Davis, known for his defense of civil liberties, argues that live facial recognition has never received explicit approval from parliament and describes it as a suspicionless mass surveillance tool that has no place in Britain.
The success of these trials has prompted the UK government to advocate for the wider implementation of facial recognition technology as a crime-fighting tool. Policing minister Chris Philp emphasized its high priority and highlighted its significant potential, citing recent deployments that have led to arrests that would have otherwise been impossible, with no false alerts reported.
However, this call for expedited roll-out has sparked outrage among some parliamentarians who are concerned about potential abuse and invasion of privacy. They urge the government’s privacy regulator to take assertive regulatory action to prevent misuse of the technology. In a letter, they expressed apprehension about the mass processing of sensitive biometric data without people’s knowledge, arguing that it poses a serious risk to the rights of the British public and could transform public spaces into environments of constant surveillance by corporations, and the government.
Lawmakers further allege that the technology has resulted in more than 65 wrongful interventions by the police due to false matches. They cited an incident involving the arrest of a 14-year-old boy in school uniform who was eventually released after his fingerprints were taken. Concerns were also raised about the use of facial recognition technology by private companies, which they believe transfers power from ordinary individuals to corporations, potentially leading to serious consequences for those who are misidentified. These consequences could include restrictions on essential purchases, intrusive interventions, or dangerous confrontations with security personnel.
Civil liberties groups argue that the technology is oppressive and incompatible with a democratic society. Comparisons have been drawn to George Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” depicting a totalitarian state under constant surveillance. Activists view this technology as an Orwellian mass surveillance tool that reduces individuals to walking ID cards.
Critics are particularly concerned about the unmonitored power given to the police, especially considering the increased powers of arrest over protests granted through the Public Order Act. They highlight the lack of oversight in the composition of police watchlists, which have reportedly included protestors and individuals with mental health issues who are not suspected of any offenses.
Opponents stress the need for legal and technical oversight to ensure responsible and ethical use of off-the-shelf versions of these tools. They question whether police forces have the necessary resources and capacity for such oversight at present.
While the Home Office interior ministry asserts that data protection, equality, and human rights laws strictly govern the use of the technology, opponents remain unsatisfied. Previous attempts to introduce compulsory identity cards in the UK have encountered strong resistance. In June 2023, the European Parliament voted to ban live facial recognition in public spaces, and some UK lawmakers who oppose the technology seek even stricter measures.
Conservative MP David Davis, known for his defense of civil liberties, argues that live facial recognition has never received explicit approval from parliament and describes it as a suspicionless mass surveillance tool that has no place in Britain.
[ad_2]
Source link
