EFF and Civil Society Groups Call on Nottinghamshire Police to Halt Live Face Recognition

This week, several civil society groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Big Brother Watch, Defend Digital Me, Liberty, Open Rights Group, Race Equality First, Statewatch, and Stopwatch, have sent a letter to Nottinghamshire Police urging them to halt the planned deployment of live facial recognition technology (LFR). The groups underscore six main concerns regarding the proposed use of LFR in the UK city.

Firstly, the organizations argue that LFR is not merely an additional tool for combating crime. Instead, the technology serves as an intrusive biometric mass surveillance system that scans the faces of all individuals passing by a camera and creates biometric face prints. This marks a significant escalation in surveillance, treating every citizen as a potential suspect from the outset.

Secondly, the groups question the police's assertion that "if you aren’t entering the city or county to commit crime, then you have nothing to worry about." Many citizens have legitimate concerns over the normalization of invasive technologies. A population unwilling to venture into their towns and cities without undergoing biometric identity checks might become less inclined to seek medical care, consult legal advice, converse with journalists, join unions, vote, protest, or express their identity in various aspects of life.

Thirdly, the groups express particular concern about the potential disproportionate utilization of LFR to address low-level crimes, such as youth antisocial behavior. According to the letter, Nottinghamshire Police might incorporate LFR into Operation View, a project that reportedly already has a watchlist of young people, including children as young as 11, suspected of causing issues.

Deploying live facial recognition to manage these behaviours seems unjustified, as more proportionate methods should be employed to identify such individuals.

Fourthly, the letter highlights the possible exacerbation of social problems that could arise from employing LFR to target children. The groups worry that the technology might negatively impact the behavior and outcomes of young individuals, increase their risk of recidivism, and strain their relationship with law enforcement. Utilizing LFR could foster an adversarial rapport between children and the police, instead of nurturing a trusting relationship from a young age.

Lastly, recent polling commissioned by Liberty reveals that 48% of people oppose scanning the faces of pedestrians on high streets without any imminent threat. Moreover, Opinium found that the majority of individuals oppose the use of facial recognition in schools, while the London Policing Ethics Panel reported that Londoners aged 16-24 were the most likely to find the Metropolitan Police Service’s use of LFR unacceptable and least likely to attend events where LFR was in operation.

Considering these six points, the groups strongly advocate for Nottinghamshire Police to immediately suspend their plans to introduce live facial recognition surveillance.