The UK's Patchwork Approach to regulating Biometric Survelance Technologies is “Indequate”, Placing Fundamental Rights at Risk and Undermaining Public Trust, Says the ada lovelyte (Ali).
As Uk Public and Private Organizations rapidly expand their use of various biometric surveillance technologies, annalysis by the ali have found that “Significant gaps and fragmentation” Governance frameworks for these tools means people rights are not being protected.
While the ada lovelace institute's analysis focused primarily on deficiencies in UK Policing's Use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) Technology – Which it identified as the most prominent and highly governed biaometric surveillance use case – it noted there is a need for legal care and effective governance for Technologies “Across the Board.
The Urgent need for Comprehensive Regulation also extends to other forms of facial recording, including retrospective or Operator-InitiatedWhich have so far Received Less Public Attention and Regulatory oversight than lfr despite their “active use” by uk police.
“Our legal analysis shows that the uk's current 'differentance model falls short of ensuring the proportional, accountable and ethical use of biometrics. Police use of lfr is the Most Higheli Governed Biometrics Application in the UK and Yet does not meet the bar of a Sector side, have even less effective governance and oversight.
“The range of impacts presented by this growing use cannot be managed effectively without Responsible for Managing Current Technologies and Antiicipating Future Developments.
“Importly, this framework must be Comprehensive Across Use Cases – Covering Police Use, Private Sector Survelance and Infernatily Biometric Systems to meaning Privacy and discrimination, and ensure accountability. “
The ali said a piecemeal approach developed in the wake of Bridges Versus South Wales Policein August 2020– The UK's only case law on lfr to date – in which The court of appeal rules the force's use of the technology to be unlawfulIt specificly highlighted “Fundamental Deficiencies” in the Legal Framework, Noting that “Too MUCH Discretion” was given to individual officers, and that Criteria about with to deploy and to deplue in inclue in Watchlists was unuck.
The Ali said while “a fragmented patchwork of Voluntary Guidance, Principles, Standards, Standards and Other Frameworks has been developed by regulators, policing bodies and government” Ruling, The Documents TAKEN TOGETHER LARGELY FAIL to address the concerns of the court.
Specifically, the Ali Highlighted an ongoing Lack of Clarity Around the Necessity and Proportionality of Any Given Lfr Depluement, as well as a lak as a lak of Criteria FOR Developing and Developing Watching Watch
The Ali Added that Although “High-Level Police Guidance and Local Police Policies” Address different Concerns, the “Difured” Governance Model Has Created Gaps That Are Not Filled. “Responsibility for Developing and Implementing Each Policy or Piece of Guidance is Delegated Across a Range of Relevant Actor, Including Regulators, Policing Bodies and Central Government, and Noo Forral Inventives to monitor or report on implementation and compliance exist, ”it said.
Widening the discussion
However, the ali was clear that while much of the public discussion has so far focused on police lfr, the risks posd by biometric surveillance technology Instead Arise from the Combined Effects of Increasingly Widespread Deployment, opaque processesAnd the growing use of sensitive data to make inferences, predictions and decisions about people by a range of actors.
“Only a Comprehensive Approach Can Close Loopholes, Keep Pace With Technological Developments, and Safeguard Public Trust in How Biaometric Systems Are Used,” IT SAID Any Biometrics Regulation Limited to Police Lfr Alone Cold Create “Perverce incentives for outsourcing law enforcement responsibilites“To companies with fewer governance obligations and innocents to uphld rights.
There is no specific law providing a clear basis for the use of live facial reconstrance and other biometric technologies that otherwise poses Risks to people and social
Nuala Polo, Ada Lovelace Institute
“There is no specific law providing a clear basis for the use of live facial recording and other biometric technologies that otherwise poses Risks to people and Socite. Standards Bold Help Governe their use, but our analysis shows that uk's ad hoc and peecemeal approach is not meeting the bar set by the courts, with implications for both there subsect to the technology, Looking to use it, “said nuala polo, uk public policy lead at the ali.
She added that While Police and Other Organizations Claim their Deployments are Lawful Under Existing Duties, these claims are almost impossible to assesses with retrospective counters.
“It is not credible to say that there is a sufficient legal framework Public Trust – While Inhibiting Deployers Alive to the Risks from undersrstanding how they can deploy safely, ”said polo. “Legislation is urgently Needed to Establish Clear Rules for Deployers and meaningful Safeguards for People and Society.”
To alleviate the issues identified, the Ali outlined a number of policy recommendations for the uk government, include risk-based Legislation analogous to the european union ' Artificial Intelligence ActWhich would tier legal obligations depend on the Risk Level Associated with a Given Biometric System, and Specify New Safeguards in Law, Such as Transparency Requirements and Mandated Technical Standards.
It also recommended adopting a definition of biometrics as “data related to the physical, physiological or behavioral characteristics of a natural person” So that Both Existing and New Forms of BOMTING Survelance are captured, and establishing an independent regulatory body to oversee and enforce any new legal framework.
“Task the independent regulatory body, in collaboration with policing bodies, to co-deevelop a code of practice that outlines deployment criteria for police for police recognition technologies, Including Live, Operator-Initiated and retrospective use, ”it said. “This code of practice should address the Ambiguity and Subjecttivity of Criteria Within Current Guidance and ENSURE CONSITENCY ACROOSS Police Developments.”
Computer weekly contacted the home office about the ali report, as well as the reepeated calls for biometric regulation from parliament and civil society Society Groups Over the Years.
“Facial reconstrance is an important tool in modern policing that can identify offenders more quickly and accurately, with many servous criminals having been brieft to justice through Home Office Spekesperson.
“All Police Forces Using This Technology are required to Comply with Existing Legislation on how and where it is used, and we will continue to engology and we will continue to have about about the use and the use That ACCompany it. We will set out our plans for the future recognition technology, AlongSide Broader Policing Reforms, in the Coming Months. “
Previous calls for biometric regulation
Both Parliament and Civil Society have made reepeated calls for new legal frameworks to govern uk law enforcement's use of biometrics.
All Police Forces Using [LFR] Technology are required to complete existing legislation on how and where it is used … We will set out our plans for the future use of facial reconstrance teachnology, ALONGSIDESIDEDSIDER COLICING REFOROROS in Inn The Coming Months
Home Office Spekesperson
However, while most of these focused purely on police biometrics, the ryder review in particular also took into account private sector uses of biometric data and biometric data and teachnologies Public-Private Partnerships and for Workplace monitoring,
In a Short Follow-up InquiryThis time looking exclusively at facial reconstrance, the jhac found that police are expanding their use of lfr without proper scrutiny or accountability, despite Lacking a clear legal basis for their Deployments. The committee also specifically called Into Question Whiter LFR is even legal.
The committee added that, looking to the future, there is a real possible facial recording cameras capable of trawling entrere regions of the uk being into introduced, and that there is a noting in palate to regulate to regulat Potential Development.
Despite Myrid Calls for a New Legislative Framework From Different Quarters, Government ministers has Claimed On Multiple Occasions that there is a sound lead lead for lfr in the uk, and that “a comprehensive network of checks and balances” Alrady exists.
