Challenges and opportunities of face recognition technology

Following ongoing engagement with its global membership, the Biometrics Institute has released a new paper, Members’ Viewpoints: The Use of Facial Recognition in Policing. This paper explores the complex issues surrounding the use of facial recognition technology (FRT), particularly live facial recognition (LFR), by law enforcement. This paper follows previous work by the Institute, including the 2021 publication Should We Ban Facial Recognition? and reflects the continuing evolution of member perspectives on this critical topic.

The paper comes at a crucial time. In late 2024, the UK Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire initiated a programme of engagement regarding the use of LFR by police, highlighting the need for public confidence in the technology’s application in the absence of specific legislation. Currently, LFR use in the UK is governed by College of Policing guidance and existing data and privacy laws. The Biometrics Institute participated in this debate and gathered viewpoints from its diverse membership on the issue, culminating in this paper.

“Private sector usage of facial recognition influences public perception. It should match the same standards and policies as police and law enforcement use, as citizens will see the two use cases in the same light.” Biometrics Institute members.

Bridging the gap: Understanding the complexities of facial recognition in policing

The paper emphasises the Biometrics Institute’s commitment to the responsible and ethical use of biometrics. It acknowledges the complexities of FRT, recognising that different use cases present varying levels of risk that necessitate careful assessment, planning, and management. The paper also underscores the importance of transparency, informed decision-making, and clear communication in building and maintaining public trust in FRT. Missteps, even those occurring in other countries, can erode public trust in these systems globally.

Why this paper is important:

This paper offers valuable insights into the complex landscape of facial recognition in policing and should be of significant interest to policymakers, law enforcement agencies, technology developers, and the public. It underscores the need for ongoing dialogue and collaboration to ensure that this powerful technology is used responsibly and ethically and addresses several key areas regarding the use of facial recognition in policing:

• Responsible use: The paper stresses that using biometrics responsibly requires informed decision-making, communication, education, and transparency to maintain public trust.
• Addressing misinformation: The paper acknowledges the presence of confusion and misinformation surrounding FRT, often through media coverage and some minority voices. It emphasises the need for balanced discussions.
• Differentiating use cases: The paper highlights the importance of differentiating between various facial recognition use cases, as they present different levels of risk. Specifically, it distinguishes between ‘retrospective/post-event (criminal) investigations’ and ‘real-time (live) facial recognition’ (LFR).
• Standards for retrospective investigations: The paper suggests that retrospective investigations using facial recognition should adhere to the same standards and processes as DNA analysis, including robust quality management procedures (ISO/IEC 17025:2017), to assure public confidence.
• Concerns about LFR: The paper acknowledges public concerns about LFR, recognising that it can feel like a continuous police line-up. While acknowledging that manual policing surveillance exists, it recognises that technology creates different fears. It states that LFR should be considered indicative and should only prompt the question of whether to stop an individual, with reassurances about data deletion being crucial. Independent testing throughout the system’s lifecycle is also critical.
• Private sector influence: The paper notes that private sector use of facial recognition influences public perception and suggests that private sector standards and policies should align with those used by police and law enforcement.
• Citizen-provided images: The question of citizens using their own facial recognition and providing images to the police comes into question
• Consistency: The paper emphasises the need for a consistent approach to FRT use, implemented through well-constructed policy and process.
• The Three Laws of Biometrics: The paper reiterates the importance of the Three Laws of Biometrics: Policy first, followed by process, and then technology. It emphasises the necessity of safeguards (processes) to manage potential issues, even with robust policies and technology testing.
• Role of Biometrics Commissioner: The paper highlights the positive reception of the UK Biometrics Commissioner’s role within the global biometrics community. It emphasises that independent oversight, guardrails, and enforcement are critical for responsible, ethical, and effective biometrics implementation.