Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

About Me

Showing posts with label Police Surveillance. Show all posts

UK Police’s Passport Photo Searches Spark Privacy Row Amid Facial Recognition Surge

 

.
Police in the UK have carried out hundreds of facial recognition searches using the national passport photo database — a move campaigners call a “historic breach of the right to privacy,” The Telegraph has reported.

Civil liberties groups say the number of police requests to tap into passport and immigration photo records for suspect identification has soared in recent years. Traditionally, searches for facial matches were limited to police mugshot databases. Now, dozens of forces are turning to the Home Office’s store of more than 50 million passport images to match suspects from CCTV or doorbell footage.

Government ministers argue the system helps speed up criminal investigations. Critics, however, say it is edging Britain closer to an “Orwellian” surveillance state.

A major concern is that passport holders are never informed if their photo has been used in a police search. The UK’s former biometrics watchdog has warned that the practice risks being disproportionate and eroding public trust.

According to figures obtained via freedom of information requests by Big Brother Watch, passport photo searches rose from just two in 2020 to 417 in 2023. In the first ten months of 2024 alone, police had already conducted 377 such searches. Immigration photo database searches — containing images gathered by Border Force — also increased sharply, reaching 102 last year, seven times higher than in 2020.

The databases contain images of people who have never been convicted of a crime, yet campaigners say the searches take place with minimal legal oversight. While officials claim the technology is reserved for serious offences, evidence suggests it is being used for a wide range of investigations.

Currently, there is no national guidance from the Home Office or the College of Policing on the use of facial recognition in law enforcement. Big Brother Watch has issued a legal warning to the Government, threatening court action over what it calls an “unlawful breach of privacy.”

Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, said:

“The Government has taken all of our passport photos and secretly turned them into mugshots to build a giant, Orwellian police database without the public’s knowledge or consent and with absolutely no democratic or legal mandate. This has led to repeated, unjustified and ongoing intrusions on the entire population’s privacy.”

Sir Keir Starmer has voiced support for expanding police use of facial recognition — including live street surveillance, retrospective image searches, and a new app for on-the-spot suspect identification.

Sir David Davis, Conservative MP, accused the Government of creating a “biometric digital identity system by the backdoor” without Parliament’s consent. The position of Biometrics Commissioner, responsible for oversight of such technology, was vacant for nearly a year until July.

Government officials maintain that facial recognition is already bound by existing laws, and stress its role in catching dangerous criminals. They say a detailed plan for its future use — including the legal framework and safeguards — will be published in the coming months.

Surge in Police Adoption of Private Cameras for Video Evidence Raises Privacy Concerns

 

Major cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., are gearing up to establish Real-Time Crime Centers, positioned as pivotal hubs for the seamless integration of various police technologies and data. Described as a "nerve center," these facilities typically amalgamate public surveillance video with diverse police technologies such as license plate readers, facial recognition, drone cameras, body camera footage, and gunshot detection software. The proliferation of these centers has become widespread, with at least 135 currently operational across the country, according to reports.

Advocates assert that these centers enhance law enforcement's ability to solve crimes and apprehend suspects efficiently. However, critics express concerns about privacy infringement and fear that the heightened surveillance might disproportionately target marginalized communities, including Black individuals.

These crime centers increasingly blur the boundaries between private and public surveillance sources. In certain cities like Atlanta and Albuquerque, the number of private cameras supplying data to law enforcement significantly surpasses public ones. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy non-profit, highlights the changing landscape, pointing out the surge in camera-equipped devices and the shift from tape to cloud storage for footage. This shift allows police to directly access images from storage companies rather than relying on residents or business owners who control the recording devices.

Notably, companies like Ring, owned by Amazon, have faced scrutiny for sharing audio and video from customer doorbells with police without explicit user consent. The increased availability of camera footage, often accessible through police programs or after specific requests, can introduce novel surveillance methods. For instance, in San Francisco, investigators, while reviewing doorbell camera footage for a hit-and-run case, discovered footage from a nearby Waymo self-driving vehicle. This trend may expand as self-driving cars become more prevalent.

Autonomous machines, beyond cars, are also becoming potential tools for surveillance. In Los Angeles, the robot food delivery company Serve Robotics provided LAPD with footage in a criminal case where the robot itself was the target of an attempted "bot-napping." The ambiguity in company policies raises questions about the sharing of footage in cases where the robots incidentally capture relevant information.

While some private cameras may unintentionally capture pertinent information, others actively seek it. A recent instance involves the city of St. Louis issuing a cease-and-desist letter to an entrepreneur planning to operate a private drone security program marketed as a crime deterrent.