The Scottish Government has finally unveiled plans to create a biometrics commissioner role to oversee how Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority handle biometric data in a lawful and ethical manner. It published a bill to establish the role on 31 May.

A code of practice will also provide guidance and information on the acquisition, retention, use and destruction of biometric data. If the bill is passed by MSPs, it will lead to a commissioner being appointed by, then reporting to, the Scottish Parliament.

The announcement confirms a plan announced in the Scottish Government’s 2018-19 programme last September, which followed the recommendations of the Independent Advisory Group on the Use of Biometric Data published earlier last year.

But is it too little too late?

England and Wales already have a biometrics commissioner, a role created in 2013 and currently filled by Professor Paul Wiles, who was appointed in June 2016.

Scottish Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf stated: “There is not yet a single commonly recognised set of working standards around biometrics.”

He highlighted that the new commissioner and code of practice will raise public trust regarding “how new technologies and data are being used to help keep crime down and communities safe”.

Human rights lawyer John Scott QC, who chaired the Independent Advisory Group on Biometric Data last year, also said: “The new framework will ensure that this is done while taking full account of the rights of the individual.”

Recommended:

• Microsoft Discreetly Deletes Huge Facial Recognition Database
• Online Tools Launched to Help Airline Passengers Avoid Facial Recognition 
• Facial Recognition Technology: Dystopia or Hysteria?

The use of biometric and forensic data by police services across the UK has been subject to intense scrutiny. Big Brother Watch director, Silkie Carlo has also claimed that the UK was “adopting surveillance technologies in a style more typical of China than of the West”.

In February 2019, The Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) were asked to examine ethical issues relating to large and complex data sets of the data.

The Government body Data Ethics Governance Framework has previously been criticised over its increased use of biometric data, which privacy rights groups have said lacks appropriate legislation.

Facial recognition controversy

The Home Office has previously stated that facial recognition is an “invaluable tool” in assisting police and intelligence services. However, many civil rights groups have branded the technology as intrusive and dangerous.

In May, the Met Police service was heavily criticised over a facial recognition pilot scheme on the streets of London. One passer-by was even given a £90 fine following a heated confrontation with police on the scene when he attempted to cover his face.

Legal action has also been brought against the London Metropolitan police over their use of facial recognition technology by Big Brother Watch.

DIGIT previously spoke to technology researcher and broadcaster, Dr Stephanie Hare, who stated that the lack of a clear-cut ethical framework is harming citizens both in the UK and on a global scale.

She explained: “Facial recognition technology is not just about scanning your face. It is about linking you to all other data about you.” She regarded the data held about individuals by the state, data brokers and companies as “powerful and invasive”.

Hare also pointed out that, worryingly, the US and the UK have repeatedly stated that the facial recognition technology is not always accurate as it struggles to identify people of colour.

“Police should be equipped with tools and technologies that work, tools that can be used with confidence and will help to prevent and prosecute crime,” she said. “Facial recognition technology is not the silver bullet to the lingering problems police services across the country are confronted with.”

Public’s confidence in biometric data

Analyst from research and advisory company, Gartner, Ant Allan, who covers biometric authentication, has stated: “Considerations of public and individual sentiment should be careful to distinguish between the technology itself, the specific implementation of the technology, and the use case.”

A threat to our jobs, health and freedom

In 2018 professional IT network Spiceworks estimated that approximately 90% of businesses will deploy biometric authentication technologies by the year 2020, with 62% already using some form of the technology.

Companies have even introduced ‘well-being’ tech to support their employees; however, there has been speculation that this technology could put our jobs and our health on the line.

The data gathered by these wearable devices, computer monitoring software and emotion facial recognition can even be used to determine an employee’s productivity, promotion prospects and whether to continue their contract of employment. In addition, in relation to healthcare, biometric data can even be used to decide whether to offer coverage at all.

Most concerningly, biometric data can affect our freedom as the data can be abused by governments. For example, Microsoft President Brad Smith said of facial recognition technology: “A government…could follow anyone anywhere, or for that matter, everyone everywhere. It could do this at any time or even all the time. It could unleash mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale.”

Affecting the most vulnerable

There have also been rising concerns over the use of biometric data among children. Privacy fears were recently raised over school dinner fingerprint payments at East Dunbartonshire secondary school. The cashless scheme sparked outrage amongst parents and disapproval from campaigners, including Big Brother Watch.

Campaigner against intrusions to children’s privacy in education, Pippa King, has been at the forefront of the resistance against the use of Biometrics and RFID monitoring in schools and colleges.

Through the prolific use of Freedom of Information Requests (FOIR’s), King has been able to establish where when and how these surveillance and tracking tools are introduced and then strives to get them shut down.

King has slammed the Government’s suggestions of internet CCTV in the classroom; thereby enabling parents to monitor their children via their ‘SMART’ Phone. King emphasises that it could also provide the Establishment paedophile community to identify their next victim.

Currently, the UK police force’s databases hold 10 million facial images without any legal basis to do so.