The organization Privacy International has highlighted the lack of clear responses from British lawmakers regarding the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in public spaces, revealing significant regulatory and oversight gaps. As part of the campaign “The End of Privacy in Public“, designed to raise public awareness about the risks of this technology, the findings show an alarming disconnect between legislators and the privacy rights of their constituents.
Lawmakers Evade Key Questions
Privacy International reported that the majority of Members of Parliament did not directly answer essential questions, such as whether FRT is being used in their constituencies or if there are any specific controls in businesses, events, or by local police. According to the report, 70% of lawmakers are unaware if this technology is being implemented in their areas.
While some responses acknowledged general concerns about FRT, many others avoided delving into associated risks, such as discriminatory biases against ethnic or gender minorities, mass surveillance, and ethical implications.
Privacy or Security? The Regulation Dilemma
Lawmakers who sought to reassure their constituents emphasized that FRT is regulated by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. However, Privacy International warns that these regulations only cover limited aspects, such as the processing of personal data, leaving fundamental issues of discrimination, freedom of expression, and mass surveillance unaddressed.
Furthermore, the application of FRT by police forces faces a complex legal framework, described as a “mosaic of rules.” This includes the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (POFA 2012) and the Human Rights Act, but none of these laws were specifically designed for FRT, leading to legal gaps, inconsistencies, and a lack of clarity regarding oversight responsibilities.
Call for Effective Regulation
In light of these challenges, both Privacy International and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK have called for a binding code of practice that would provide greater clarity and guarantees. According to the ICO, such a code would offer a transparent and consistent framework for the use of biometric technologies, benefiting both law enforcement and the public.
The report also emphasizes the need for a balance between collective security and individual freedom. While some lawmakers defended FRT as a necessary police tool, no clear measures were specified to ensure transparency and proportionality in its implementation.
A Threat to Public Privacy
Privacy International has announced the resumption of its campaign to highlight the risks of FRT and demand greater parliamentary oversight. The organization warns that the normalization of mass surveillance could negatively reshape the concepts of privacy and freedom in public spaces if adequate regulatory measures are not taken.
As this technology expands in the UK, the debate over its use and regulation intensifies, leaving open the question of how to balance public security and individual rights in an increasingly digital world.
via: Privacy International and Privacy News