TechRadar: Facial recognition scrutiny must extend beyond police

Public attitudes toward the technology are not shaped by the technology alone, the article said. Where it is used, why it is deployed and who operates it influence support. Face-Int commissioned an independent survey of 2,000 UK adults earlier this year; it found 73% support police use of FRT, compared with 54% support for use in retail environments. The survey also found 57% of respondents were concerned about how images of their faces are stored, and 43% said clear laws governing FRT would increase their trust.

The article drew a distinction between police using FRT to identify a wanted suspect, often for violent or sexual offenses, and a retailer using it to identify someone suspected of previous shoplifting. Questions about accuracy, privacy and biometric data handling are valid in both cases, it said, but the purpose and context differ. Police live facial recognition is typically signaled through marked vehicles and signage, often with advance announcements about when and where it will operate and how data will be processed. In retail spaces, the article said, use may not always be as obvious, and the public may not understand what happens to their data.

Accuracy matters but will not by itself secure public trust, according to the article. How facial data is collected, processed and stored, and the governance around its use, matter as much. In the UK, FRT is regulated through a patchwork of legislation including the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act, which the article said forces deployers to interpret several laws and leads to inconsistent standards. The EU AI Act specifically addresses biometric identification, with additional requirements to protect the public and their data due to take effect in December 2027.

The UK government completed a consultation earlier this year on a new framework for law enforcement use of FRT, but the article said it did not extend to private-sector deployments. More recently, the Independent Commissioner’s Office published findings from its work examining police use of FRT and said it was working with forces and police oversight bodies to give the public confidence in governance and oversight.

Greater scrutiny should provide clearer expectations rather than simply more restrictions, the article argued. Organizations should be transparent about when and why FRT is being used, and information about a deployment’s purpose, what happens to people’s data and who is responsible should be available before data is captured. Privacy should be built into FRT systems from the outset, with techniques such as hashing and other forms of biometric template protection removing the need to capture facial images. Organizations should capture and retain only data they genuinely need, avoid retaining data on individuals who do not match a legitimate watchlist, apply clear retention periods and maintain robust security.