Western Australia’s LFR trial draws criticism over privacy risks, limited consultation

A five-month mobile trial of live facial recognition in Western Australia has led to real-time results and concern. During a press conference Western Australia’s police commissioner Col Blanch was briefing reporters when a marked police van in the vicinity highlighted a woman in the crowd.

It did this using facial recognition technology that scans faces, cross-referencing them instantly against a database of around 4,000 people on a police watchlist. Halfway through Blanch’s conference, the system alerted police whose officers then approached a woman in the crowd who was wanted for failing to appear in court.

“Been happening all week,” Blanch responded, after being asked for his reaction. “I’d love to say I planned that but I think that’s exactly what the technology is … People are being arrested because they are wanted.”

More than 130,000 faces were scanned in the first week of the LFR trial. A single police van was parked in crowded public spaces, which threw up 33 alerts that led to 19 arrests. It also resulted in two welfare checks and engagements with 21 identified registered sex offenders. There were also two incorrect alerts.

Western Australian police does not specify a provider, but an informational video shows officers positioned beside an NEC logo, a vendor whose software the Privacy Impact Assessment was completed for. Further, an FAQ from the Western Australian Government notes the algorithms have been assessed by the UK’s National Physical Laboratory and the U.S.’ NIST. While Cognitec and Idemia’s algorithms have been assessed by the NPL, NEC is the only provider known to have submitted live facial recognition to the body for evaluation.

The trial has generated backlash too. Western Australia’s independent privacy watchdog cautioned against “collective privacy harms.” In a statement, the Office of the Information Commissioner WA (OIC WA) said it was aware of the trial “but was not invited to participate in any formal consultation process with WA Police and did not provide input into the design of the trial.”

Blanch said that the van was clearly marked and that its system doesn’t store data on ordinary people, pixelating anyone not matched in the database. He argued the tool wasn’t a form of mass surveillance but a targeted way to identify individuals wanted by police, claiming it was less intrusive than standard CCTV and could even enhance community privacy.

Speaking to The Guardian, Prof. Dali Kaafar, executive director of Macquarie University’s cybersecurity hub, said the commissioner’s analogy to standard CCTV was misleading. Live facial recognition is designed to identify individuals, he noted, whereas conventional cameras do not. In practice, every face in view is captured, analyzed and biometrically matched against a database, he said, which is fundamentally different from how CCTV operates.

The OIC WA disputed the idea that brief data processing avoids regulatory obligations, noting that information is still being collected even if retained only momentarily. The regulator also pointed to findings from the 2026 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey, which show rising public concern: 45 percent of Australians now view facial recognition as their biggest privacy risk, up from 27 percent in 2023. Comfort with police use of biometrics has also declined, falling to 57 percent.

The OIC WA keeping a close eye

WA Police says the technology will be deployed only in focused, short‑term operations, with officers required to manually verify every alert before acting. The watchlist may include people with outstanding warrants, suspects in serious crimes, missing individuals and those considered at risk of harming themselves or others. The force stresses that an algorithmic match cannot justify an arrest on its own. Officers must review the image, confirm the identity and establish a lawful basis for intervention.

The trial plan does not mean WA Police are committed to permanent facial‑recognition cameras, covert use or linking the system to the wider state CCTV network. The five‑month pilot will be evaluated, and its results will determine whether and how the technology might be used in future.

The OIC WA says the LFR trial will act as an early test of the state’s new Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing (PRIS) Act 2024. This is the first Australian law to directly govern how personal data is used in automated decision‑making.

Under the PRIS Act, WA Police must evaluate and demonstrate how they are managing risks of bias, harm and discrimination in any automated system. The legislation also requires a full privacy impact assessment for projects deemed high‑risk.

Unlike facial recognition used in shops, the public has little choice when the technology is used in busy public areas. Experts argue that posting a sign isn’t enough, saying people cannot give meaningful consent if they don’t understand the long‑term risks of biometric data collection or how such systems might expand over time.

The OIC WA also notes that biometric identifiers are far more sensitive than information like credit card numbers because they cannot be changed if compromised, placing them in a higher‑risk category. The WA government says it will publish the results of each deployment as they become available. The watchdog says it is actively “monitoring and requesting information” from police to ensure compliance for the trial and to inform biometric policies going forward.

Article Topics

Australia  |  biometrics  |  criminal ID  |  facial recognition  |  law enforcement  |  live facial recognition  |  NEC  |  NeoFace