The utilization of live facial recognition technology by the South Wales Police has ignited widespread apprehension among politicians. The implementation of this technology at various events throughout December has spurred concerns regarding its potential impact on the data and human rights of Welsh citizens.
In a correspondence directed to Jeremy Vaughan, the chief constable, 11 Members of the Senedd (MSs) articulated their concerns, characterizing the technology as “highly intrusive” and “rights-abusing”. The letter, endorsed by politicians from diverse political parties, conveyed unease regarding the implications of subjecting every passer-by to biometric identity checks and the potential infringement of privacy rights.
Sarah Murphy, the Labour MS for Bridgend, expressed dismay over the escalating use of live facial recognition technology. Murphy underscored the impact of the technology on the local community, where thousands of individuals have undergone facial scanning for simply being out with their families. She raised the query of whether the funding for this technology could be better directed towards deploying more police officers on the streets to safeguard businesses during the holiday season.
The concerns articulated by the politicians are bolstered by findings from reputable sources. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, live facial recognition technology disproportionately misidentifies women and individuals of colour at a higher rate. Furthermore, the National Physical Laboratory reported that 90 per cent of matches with the technology by South Wales Police have been inaccurate since its inception.
The absence of a debate in the Senedd or the House of Commons on the use of live facial recognition technology for policing purposes is another cause for concern. In contrast, legislators in Europe and the United States have taken measures to introduce legislation to restrict or pause the use of the technology.
Madeline Stone from Big Brother Watch, a privacy campaigning organisation, described live facial recognition technology as a “highly intrusive surveillance tool”. Stone emphasized the lack of public or parliamentary oversight in the escalation of this technology and expressed apprehension about the potential for innocent citizens to be erroneously identified as criminals.
The article also recollects a legal case in 2020 in which Ed Bridges, a civil liberties campaigner, and Liberty won a case against South Wales Police concerning the use of facial recognition technology. This underscores a previous instance where concerns about the technology were validated through legal action.
In conclusion, the concerns raised by the politicians and privacy campaigners underscore the necessity for a thorough debate and oversight on the use of live facial recognition technology. The potential infringements of privacy and human rights carry significant ramifications for Welsh citizens. It is imperative for authorities to address these concerns and ensure that the use of such technology aligns with democratic values and fundamental rights.
+ There are no comments
Add yours