Drones, DNA losses and mission creep feature in OBSCC annual report
The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s annual report for 2021-2022 has been laid in Parliament.
The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s annual report for 2021-2022 has been laid in Parliament today, Thursday 9 February.
The Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, is responsible for overseeing police use of DNA and fingerprints in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for encouraging the proper use of public space surveillance cameras.
The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s annual report, submitted to the Home Secretary on 14 November 2022, sets out Professor Sampson’s findings in relation to his statutory responsibilities, and other observations about the use of biometrics and overt surveillance.
Issues discussed include:
- improvements in data losses from counter-terrorism databases (paragraph 27)
- increase in police requests to keep biometrics of unconvicted people (paragraphs 28 to 32)
- police losses of DNA through sample handling errors (paragraphs 72 to 75)
- caps on samples by forensic science providers (paragraph 76)
- current trends and the future use biometrics (paragraphs 87 to 92)
- police use of facial recognition and artificial intelligence (AI) (paragraphs 93 to 116)
- demise of the Surveillance Camera Code (paragraphs 121 to 129)
- UK failures in ethical procurement of surveillance equipment related to human rights abuses in China (paragraphs 133-138)
- lack of regulation and mission creep in use of ANPR, the UK’s largest non-military database (paragraphs 139 to 147)
- use of drones / unmanned aerial vehicles (paragraphs 157 to 165)
To arrange an interview with Professor Sampson, call Justin Hawkins on 07792 551301, or email enquiries@obscc.org.uk.
Professor Sampson said:
The areas of biometrics and surveillance are becoming both increasingly important and increasingly inter-related. In recent years we have seen an explosion of surveillance technology in the public and private realms, with devices such as drones and body worn video, dashcams and smart doorbells. At the same time, there have been enormous advances in the power of AI to exploit the vast amount of surveillance data now being produced.
I believe that many of the issues raised in my report show that we urgently need to wake up to the opportunities presented, and the threats posed by, the explosion of capability in AI-driven biometric surveillance. If we fail, we risk missing out on the potential benefits it can offer and exposing ourselves to the potential dangers it poses.
Now more than ever, we need a clear, comprehensive and coherent framework to ensure proper regulation and accountability in these crucial areas.
It’s already the case that the police are not making as much use as the public might expect of biometric surveillance technology such as facial recognition. At the same time, there is uncertainty around the regulatory framework for ensuring legitimacy and accountability if and when they do use such technology.
Biometric surveillance technologies can undoubtedly be intrusive to privacy and raise other human rights considerations, but there is no question that they can also be powerful weapons in the fight against serious crime and safeguard other fundamental rights such as the right to life and freedom from degrading or inhumane treatment.
The extent to which the public will tolerate facial recognition and other emerging biometric surveillance technology will depend largely upon whether they believe there are mechanisms in place to make sure they’re used lawfully, responsibly and according to a set of clear principles that ensure their use is dictated by what society agrees is acceptable, and not simply by what technology makes possible.
Effective oversight of police surveillance and their retention and use of biometrics generally is an important part of the wider trust and confidence agenda. The government is revising the oversight arrangements and I have agreed to reappointment while Parliament decides what that reformed oversight should look like.
Selected quotes from the OBSCC annual report include:
“At the time of reporting, there are calls for the legislative framework governing biometrics to be revisited, not just as proposed within the government’s data reform consultation, but also in broader terms.” (paragraph 89 and footnote 55 of the report)
“Technology is advancing at an exponential rate… [and] …it is questionable how far the disparate pieces of legislation governing the use, retention and forensic application of biometrics have kept pace with the practices they purport to regulate…other jurisdictions such as Scotland have taken a much more holistic – some might say realistic – approach to the subject…” (paragraphs 88 and 89)
“As our capability to collect and compare more biometric information from more sources with greater speed and at scale increases, the greater becomes the need for democratically accountable governance of the deployment of those capabilities, and standardised and accredited training to help instil public confidence in these capabilities.” (paragraph 90)
“There is a ‘clear case for revisiting our approach’ to regulating the use of biometrics in light of technological change.” (paragraph 91)
“As Parliament begins to consider the proposed legislation for reform, there is an opportunity – perhaps a necessity – to address for the first time the many pressing questions around the legitimate role for newly intrusive technology such as facial recognition in biometric surveillance by the police and law enforcement.” (paragraph 94)
“I have expressed some concerns about the intention to use facial recognition technology to find ‘potential witnesses’. While I can understand there may be some exceptional, very high harm events such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters where retrospective facial recognition might legitimately make a significant contribution to an understanding of what happened, those events would be mercifully rare and wholly exceptional.” (paragraph 105)
“The ramifications of AI-driven facial recognition in policing and law enforcement are [ … ] profound enough to be taken seriously and close enough to require our immediate attention.” (paragraph 161)
The annual report for 2021-22 is likely the last annual report by the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner because abolition of the role is proposed in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill currently on its way through Parliament.