-
Share
Scottish Government Biometric Data Proposals Fall Short
Proposals detailed by the Scottish Government on how the use of biometric data can be effectively governed are welcomed, yet could fall short in the long-term.Â
The use of biometric data is an issue that has been plaguing the United Kingdom over the past several years. How can facial recognition technology, genetic information and fingerprints be used to enhance day-to-day life?
More recently, questions have been raised on how biometric data can be used to tackle crime; but how can this be used in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of millions across the country?
Privacy rights groups, such as Big Brother Watch or the Open Rights Group argue that these technologies cannot be used without someone, somewhere, being unfairly targeted or unwittingly exposed. Furthermore, the rapid development of biometric technology is not being matched policy or oversight to counter misuse or abuse.
The Scottish Government has opened the discussion to the public, publishing its “Consultation on enhanced oversight of biometric data for justice and community safety purposes” on 13th of July.
Plans outlined by the Scottish Government highlight the need for regulation of biometric technology and propose that an independent Biometrics Commissioner is appointed. It also recommends that a standard code of practice be established.
This Biometrics Commissioner, it is suggested, will provide independent and ethical oversight of biometric data usage.
A Work in Progress
In 2017, the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Michael Matheson MSP, tasked an Independent Advisory Group to consider the “taking, use and retention of biometric data in policing.”
Chaired by Solicitor Advocate, John Scott QC, the IAG made several recommendations – which form the basis of this report – including:
- The establishment of a Scottish Biometrics Commissioner to provide independent oversight of the use of biometric data for justice and community safety purposes in Scotland; and
- A statutory code of practice covering biometric data and technologies
Big Brother is Watching
The use of facial recognition technology, in particular, has gained widespread criticism from privacy rights groups recently. In March, members of the House of Lords slammed plans for the use of Automated Facial Recognition Technology (AFR) as a step too far for a nation already under heavy surveillance.
A number of peers called for stricter regulation of the technology, which gained notoriety when it was deployed at the Champions League Final in Cardiff and at the Notting Hill Carnival.
The Met Police Force’s systems produced 104 alerts based on facial recognition scans, of which only two were confirmed to be positive matches. This equates to a false positive rate of 98% – hardly reassuring. The UK Government’s Biometrics Commissioner went so far as to deem the technology “not yet fit for purpose”.
For privacy rights groups such as Big Brother Watch, the success rate of this technology and the indiscriminate monitoring of the public represents a gross intrusion of privacy and a disturbing step toward an Orwellian-style society.
In Scotland specifically, concerns raised by MSPs in 2015 prompted an investigation by the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMCIS). The report, published in January 2016, proved Police Scotland had uploaded facial images of over 330,000 Scottish people to the Police National Database (PND).
Many of the individuals whose images were uploaded had not been found guilty of a crime.
Not Far Enough
Matthew Rice of Open Rights Group said that although the proposals are welcomed, there are several key areas that require attention – specifically the role of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner.
“There is a lot to be impressed about with the proposals from the Scottish Government in the consultation,” Rice said. “The creation of an independent Scottish Biometrics Commissioner is one that should be welcomed.”
He added: “There are also areas that need improvement. The proposed Commissioner’s position for investigating complaints and publishing reports is in line with other public bodies in Scotland. Yet for some unknown reason, the Commission has had its enforcement powers cut short.”
Rice noted that while the Scottish Information Commissioner could refer a public body who fails to comply with a notice to Scottish Courts, the proposed Biometrics Commissioner would only be able to refer it to the Scottish Parliament; which could be highly restrictive.
“Good principles”, Rice suggested, “mean very little unless you back them up with real accountability.”
For the Biometrics Commissioner to be truly effective, the Scottish Government should look to strengthen the proposals laid out to ensure adequate enforcement and oversight.
Private Industry
Rice also suggested that because the commissioner will focus primarily on public bodies, private industry will be left to its own devices; meaning more unwanted intrusion and privacy abuse.
He said: “The lines between who has access to this technology, and where it is deployed, are becoming blurred.
“Private industry is clearly interested in collecting biometric data. Discussions in the retail sector of using biometrics technology to monitor customer feedback to give an example, are very real.
“There are a variety of groups, both public and private, turning to biometrics in some form. An effective commissioner would have that reflected in their remit.”
In recent years, retailers have begun the process of introducing biometric data into their operations. Finely-tuned advertising and catered offers are but one of a few things biometric data can help develop for private businesses. This, Rice said, could become a growing issue that is outwith the domain of any potential biometric commissioner or public-focused legal framework.
