With the Met primed to use live facial recognition tech at the upcoming Notting Hill Carnival, primary legislation is needed urgently, writes Rebecca Vincent in today’s Notebook

Police use of live facial recognition heats up at Notting Hill Carnival

As summer temperatures heat up, so too is police use of live facial recognition. The Home Office and the London Metropolitan Police have been working hard to present a positive image of this invasive technology, doing the media rounds with stories boasting of the number of arrests made and unveiling plans to increase the number of live facial recognition deployments. For the first time, a permanent network of fixed live facial recognition cameras is set to be installed in Croydon, South London, reportedly in September. The Met has also announced it will be using live facial recognition at the Notting Hill Carnival later this month, despite the fact that use of the controversial technology was scrapped after trials at the event in 2016 and 2017 led to widespread outcry on grounds of discrimination and bias.

Despite this proliferation, there remains no legislative basis for the use of live facial recognition, with the police and private sector alike being left to write their own rules for where and how it is used. Home secretary Yvette Cooper announced a “governance framework” was forthcoming, but it remains our view at Big Brother Watch that primary legislation is urgently needed to ensure safeguards and accountability for the use of this dangerous technology. 

In the meantime, we’re fighting back, through advocacy with the government and parliament, and through the courts. We’re proud to be supporting a legal challenge brought by Londoner Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife crime community worker who was misidentified through live facial recognition and held and questioned by police, alongside co-claimant Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch. The High Court has given permission for the legal challenge to go forward, with a full hearing expected in January. Why is the Met in such a hurry to expand its use of live facial recognition with this crucial judicial review looming?

Welcome to the childproofed internet

The controversial Online Safety Act is back in the headlines as some of its more onerous provisions begin to take effect – in particular, age-verification requirements that have already resulted in a sharp increase in online censorship. Unless we’re willing to undergo intrusive age-verification checks with third parties – ranging from providing our IDs to having our faces scanned – all UK internet users are now limited to a childproofed version of the web. 

Although the Online Safety Act was presented as a means of keeping children safe online, its immediate impact goes far beyond its remit, effectively censoring children and adults alike from a range of legitimate content. Instead of doubling down with unhelpful comments such as those of secretary of state for science, innovation and technology Peter Kyle, who claimed “If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators”, the government should engage with the widespread and valid concerns over the law, and take steps to ensure we are all safe online, without compromising our most fundamental rights.

Peaceful protesters arrested en masse

In a shocking escalation, last weekend police arrested an unprecedented number of peaceful protesters gathered in London to express their views on the war in Gaza and their support for Palestine Action. The direct action protest network was proscribed as a “terrorist organisation” last month by a vote in parliament at the request of the home secretary – a decision that the High Court has now given permission to challenge on grounds of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, with a full judicial review claim expected to be heard in court later this year.

On 9 August, the Met made 522 arrests of peaceful protestors, many of whom were holding placards bearing only the phrase: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Half of the total arrests made were of people more than 60 years old. It’s difficult indeed to see any public interest argument for charging hundreds of pensioners with terrorism for their role in a peaceful protest.

Quote of the week:

“Whatever one’s views for or against Palestine Action’s cause, it would be Orwellian in the extreme to treat peaceful protestors as terrorists. We might expect it to happen in Beijing or Moscow, but not in Parliament Square in London. Doing so also puts a heavy extra burden on the police and the courts at a time when they can least afford it.”

Lord Paul Strasburger, chair of Big Brother Watch

Dystopian summer reading club

What better time to catch up on your dystopian fiction reading list than over the summer holidays? With real life feeling increasingly Orwellian, it’s always worth starting with 1984 by George Orwell himself, whether discovering it for the first time or re-immersing oneself in its pages (I’m also partial to the audiobook version narrated by Stephen Fry). Among my other favourite classics are The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, and of course, The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood.

In modern dystopian fiction, it’s hard to beat Kazuo Ishiguro, whether the quietly devastating Never Let Me Go (which turns 20 this year), or the newer Klara and the Sun, with its subtly harrowing look at what it means to be human in a not-too-distant future. The plethora of dystopian young adult novels are also worthy of mention, for teens or adults alike. In my house, the Hunger Games, Divergent and Maze Runner series are all responsible for many late bedtimes and requests for one more chapter!

Rebecca Vincent is interim director at Big Brother Watch