UK BSCC notes police biometrics procurement ‘issues,’ welcomes centralization

Confusion, and the need to dispel it, is the central theme of a response from the UK’s regulator for police use of biometrics to recent policy proposals.

Oversight changes proposed by the UK government for police use of biometrics could clear up confusion around the responsibilities of particular regulators and set put visits to police forces by the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC) on a statutory footing. Those developments, plus an actual basis in law for police use of facial recognition, would represent a significant improvement in the oversight landscape, BSCC William Webster writes in his response to a policy paper. Plus, it could help UK police forces better understood what the implications of facial recognition and surveillance technologies they procure.

Webster responded to the reform proposals contained in the Independent Review of Police Force Structures, which called for evidence in March. He reviews the proposals there, and in the January white paper “From local to national: a new model for policing,” which together set out a vision for significant centralization of power.

Home Office held a consultation in the wake of the white paper, and proposed combining the BSCC role with that of the Forensic Science Regulator.

Changes in the role may be warranted, in Webster’s view, in part because of confusion in the UK’s police biometrics and surveillance camera ecosystem about its scope. The new oversight body will probably be required to coordinate with other regulators and service providers, Webster writes, welcoming the change as a way to ensure both practitioners and the public know who is responsible for what.

Webster stresses that “careful thought needs to be given to how this is formalized to ensure limited or no crossovers, and avoid duplication of effort.”

He sees other opportunities for reform as well.

He has resumed field visits, after the previous government threw the entire program into disarray with a 2022 proposal to close the office that it ultimately dropped to hold an election. Setting field visits by the BSCC, or whoever takes the same oversight responsibilities, on statutory footing, combined with a smaller number of local forces to visit, could improve review and audit practices, Webster suggests.

The smaller number of forces, perhaps 20 or less, could make it easier for the Commissioner to convince them to use their powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to request biometrics retention for people in specific circumstances.

The biggest change though, could come from education around biometric technology itself.

“In the six months since my appointment as BSCC, and as an academic specialising in surveillance beforehand, I have spoken to and been made aware of several forces seeking to purchase, or having already purchased, new biometric and AI-assisted technologies without, it appears to me, fully understanding the capabilities of the technology and the implications of its deployment,” Webster writes.

A 2022 survey of police use of surveillance cameras in public spaces likewise identified “issues with the procurement process,” and that local forces appeared not to be using the national decision-making model for procurements.

Four years later, a direction to address those issues appears in sight.

Article Topics

biometrics  |  Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner  |  facial recognition  |  law enforcement  |  procurement  |  regulation