Facial Recognition Catches Nine Wanted Criminals in Romford, Woolwich Were Arrested  

The Metropolitan Police Service has announced the arrest of nine individuals in Romford and Woolwich with the help of Live Facial Recognition technology. This deployment is part of the Met’s ongoing commitment to reduce crime within London communities.

This advanced technology is being strategically placed across London boroughs. It assists officers in identifying individuals wanted by the courts and police. The arrests made in Romford and Woolwich addressed offences such as breaching Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, breaching court orders, cruelty to children, and aggravated burglary.

Here’s how Live Facial Recognition works: The system checks the faces of passersby against a designated watchlist. When a match is found an alert is triggered, prompting officers to assess the image and potentially approach the individual.

Importantly, the technology automatically deletes data on anyone not identified on the watchlist within seconds, ensuring privacy for members of the public.

Facial Recognition (FR) technology is used in several ways by the Metropolitan Detectives.

• locate wanted criminals
• safeguard vulnerable people
• prevent and detect crime

Live Facial Recognition (LFR) systems have cameras focused on a particular area. When someone passes through that area, their images are streamed to the LFR system, which contains a watchlist of individuals who are wanted by the police and/or the courts, or those who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.

The Met says “It does not use all CCTV cameras from across London to track every person’s movements.”

Facial Recognition CCTV: Not Everyone’s Watching with Approval

While the Met Police hail facial recognition technology as a success in recent arrests, there exists a vocal group of campaigners with significant concerns.

Here’s a look at their worries:

• Privacy Erosion: Campaigners argue that facial recognition CCTV creates a vast network of surveillance, potentially chilling free movement and anonymity. They fear constant monitoring could discourage people from exercising their rights, such as attending protests or expressing dissent.
• Algorithmic Bias: Studies have shown that facial recognition software can exhibit racial and gender bias, leading to misidentification and unfair targeting of certain demographics. This raises concerns about potential discrimination in arrests and interactions with law enforcement.
• Mass Surveillance Creep: The worry is that once this technology is normalized, its use could expand beyond its current scope. Campaigners fear a “slippery slope” where facial recognition becomes a tool for broader social control, not just crime prevention.
• Lack of Transparency and Oversight: Concerns exist about the lack of transparency in how watchlists are compiled and the criteria used for facial recognition matches. Campaigners argue for stricter regulations and oversight to ensure fair and responsible use of the technology.

The use of facial recognition CCTV in London sparks debate, with some citizens strongly supporting its deployment.

Here’s a look at the arguments in favour:

• Enhanced Public Safety: Supporters believe this technology empowers law enforcement to apprehend dangerous criminals more effectively. The swift identification of wanted individuals, particularly those posing a threat to public safety, is seen as a significant advantage.
• Reduced Crime Rates: Proponents argue that facial recognition can deter potential criminals and make them think twice before committing an offence in areas under surveillance. The perception of increased police vigilance can contribute to a safer environment.
• Solving Cold Cases: Supporters see facial recognition as a valuable tool for revisiting unsolved crimes. By comparing faces captured on CCTV footage with databases of known offenders, detectives might identify suspects who previously evaded investigation.
• Protecting Vulnerable Populations: Some citizens believe facial recognition can be particularly beneficial in protecting vulnerable groups like children and missing persons. Faster identification and location of missing individuals could lead to quicker intervention and potentially save lives.
• Balancing Security and Privacy: Supporters acknowledge privacy concerns but argue that safeguards can be implemented to ensure responsible use of the technology. They believe the benefits of increased security outweigh potential privacy infringements.

While the Met Police emphasize their are safeguards in place, such as automatic deletion of unidentified faces, anti-facial recognition campaigners believe these are not enough. They advocate for stricter regulations, limitations on deployment, and robust public discourse on the ethical implications of this powerful technology.

PDF -> Standard Operating Procedures

Further information about the testing can be found in the test strategy document and the DPIA Annex.