facial recognition software causes ‘civil liberty problems’

8/3/2019 Facial recognition software causes ‘civil liberty problems’

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/facial-recognition-software-causes-civil-liberty-problems 1/1

4 THE BIG ISSUE IN THE NORTH · 21-27 NOVEMBER 2011

N E W S

Facial recognition softwarecauses ‘civil liberty problems’Cutting-edge face recognitiontechnology used by Merseysidepolice has come under fire fromexperts and campaign groups,who say it could infringe thecivil liberties of innocentpeople.

Documents seen by The Big Issue in the North show that

since 2008 more than £260,000has been spent by the Liverpoolforce on a system calledColossus, manufactured bySurrey-based firmOmniPerception.

Described as a “biometricsearch engine”, the technologycan process a database of eightmillion images in one second,matching faces taken fromsources including CCTV, mobilephones and traditional cameras.

DemonstrationsIntelligence teams are known to

photograph and video protestersduring public demonstrations,raising questions about whetherthese images, which are shared between forces, could be used aspart of facial recognitiondatabases.

Merseyside police said it doesnot currently use images fromoutside agencies but has refusedto give details of how it uses theOmniPerception system.

Guy Herbert, general secretaryof privacy campaign groupNO2ID, said there were “hugeproblems of validity and civilliberty” with the use of thetechnology.

‘Chilling effect’“They [the police] should haveto have warrants and havereasonable suspicion to startgathering large amounts of information,” he said.

“We should be worryingabout two things: people beingwrongly identified or falselystigmatised with suspicionsimply by being matched up ona database; and whethercollecting databases of people’smovements obtained from

photographs – often CCTV – is a

processing suspects at thestation and not employingColossus at public gatheringsand marches, which would havean enormously chilling effect onlegitimate speech and protest.”

‘Non-threatening’But the chief executive of OmniPerception, StewartHefferman, has repeatedlydismissed privacy concernsaround the technology.

In a statement on thecompany’s website he said:“This modern obsession withface recognition as the enemy of privacy is a spurious andthoroughly unhelpfulphenomenon.

“Properly used, it’s absolutelynon-threatening, and delivershuge benefits – improving safetyand security in many areas of modern life. More secure

identity management has an

legitimate thing for police todo.”

Aaron Martin, a privacy andIT policy expert at the LondonSchool of Economics, called onpolice to explain how the facerecognition technology is beingused.

“OmniPerception’s claimsregarding the effectiveness andreliability of its Colossus systemare incredibly bold and ought to be independently verified beforeMerseyside police invest anyfurther in the technology,” hesaid. “There also needs to bemuch more public transparencyaround the provenance of theimages in the Merseysidedatabase. Where are these facialimages being sourced from?Moreover, what is the extent of the police’s use of the facialrecognition system?

“I would hope that the police

are restricting their use to

Facial recognition software can process eight million images a second

important part to play in fraudprevention, protection againstidentity theft and the defence of sensitive and vulnerable placesand premises.”

Other authorities acrossEngland known to havepurchased OmniPerceptiontechnology include police forces

in Hertfordshire and the City of London.

A spokesman for MerseysidePolice said: “We do not discussspecific uses of technology ortactics.”

Unauthorised accessHe added: “The photographstaken during protests ordemonstrations are done so tohelp in the prevention anddetection of crime. All photoswill be destroyed after the eventunless there were any offencescommitted by a person in the

photo. Should an offence have been committed thephotographs are used asevidence in any futureinvestigation.”

Last week a senior Merseysidepolice detective, Mike Lawlor,was charged with six counts of unauthorised accessing of personal data controlled by theforce.

According to Nick Pickles, thedirector of campaign group BigBrother Watch, the caseillustrates how informationstored on databases can beabused.

Criminal conviction“Such incidents are notconfined to low level staff, butthose working at a highlysensitive level,” he said.

More than 900 police officersand staff breached the DataProtection Act in 2007-2010,with more than 240 receiving acriminal conviction.

Under the terms of the act,anyone can file a request to findout what information is storedabout them.

RYAN GALLAGHER

BITN 903_04,05 (News) 18/11/11 13:29 Page 4