The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has called on the Metropolitan Police to ensure that its use of live facial recognition technology complies with human rights law.

The human rights regulator has been granted permission to intervene in an upcoming judicial review examining whether the Met Police’s use of the technology complies with human rights law.

While the EHRC acknowledges the potential value of live facial recognition technology in policing, it believes the Met’s governance policy is incompatible with European Convention on Human Rights articles guaranteeing a right to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association.

Live facial recognition technology (LFTR) captures and analyses the faces of individuals passing in front of real-time CCTV cameras, extracting unique biometric data from each face and comparing it to a watchlist of people sought by police.

The Met Police has previously used live facial recognition technology at public events, and has announced their intention to use the technology at the Notting Hill Carnival.

Currently, there is no specific domestic legislation regulation the police use of LFRT, meaning that police instead rely on common law powers.

The EHRC says that the increased use of LFRT by police means the use of the technology poses a threat to human rights, as thousands of faces are often being scanned per deployment. The 2020 case brought against the South Wales Police found that the use of LFRT was unlawful at the time.

The EHRC is issuing submissions and evidence showing how intrusive the use of LFRT by police has been in an effort to protect against human rights infringements.

The EHRC’s submission stresses that LFRT can be intrusive, especially so when used on a large scale, and warns that its use at protests could have a “chilling effect” on individuals’ rights under freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.  These rights are fundamental to democratic society.

Data shows that the number of black men triggering an ‘alert’ is higher than would be expected proportionally, when compared to the population of London. The EHRC welcomes that the Met, since 25 July 2024, has adopted a minimum accuracy threshold which it has said will limit the adverse impact on certain protected groups.

However, the regulator notes that the accuracy of the technology is paramount and even low error rates can translate to significant numbers of false identifications when using large watchlists. The consequence of false alerts can be significant for individuals such as for Mr Thompson, who is bringing the judicial review, as he was wrongly identified by LFRT leading to significant disruption.

Recommended reading

• UK Police Using Passports For ‘Secretive’ Facial Recognition Searches
• UK Expands Live Facial Recognition in Police Van Rollout
• Ada Lovelace Institute Condemns UK’s Facial Recognition Governance
• UK Police Use of Facial Recognition Found to be ‘Unethical’

The UK is however, continuing with its rollout of the technology, with the government announcing an increase in LFRT-equipped vans to various constituencies in England.

This is despite international legal policy developments, such as the EU AI Act, rating the use of LFRT by law enforcement as ‘high risk’.

“Live facial recognition technology is a tool which, when used responsibly, can help to combat serious crime and keep people safe. But the data this technology processes is biometric data, which is deeply personal,” John Kilpatrick, chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said.

“The law is clear: everyone has the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. These rights are vital for any democratic society.

“As such, there must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. We believe that the Metropolitan Police’s current policy falls short of this standard. The Met, and other forces using this technology, need to ensure they deploy it in ways which are consistent with the law and with human rights.”