London Police broaden surveillance strategy

Great Britain has, for many years, indeed decades, been seen throughout the free world as the country which led the way in upholding the rights and civil liberties of individuals. However, recent events such as the deportation of foreign nationals and others whose British nationality is still being contested and the recent change in the country’s immigration policy have combined to put that treasured claim in some doubt. Freedom seems no longer to be unfettered.

A recently elected right wing government under the leadership of Prime Minister Johnson has quickly established the tramlines on which the country will be run. It appears to have emboldened the London Metropolitan Police (MP) to implement a policy of policing that many civil and human rights bodies feel is the ultimate intrusion on the liberties of the individual in London.

Within the last week, the MP has taken new and highly controversial steps to identify and possibly apprehend criminals and others who may be suspected of crime.

The System – “Live Facial Recognition” (LFR) – has been trialled for three years and now seems ripe to be administered on an unsuspecting public, although it must be said that MP will give early warning regarding the area in which they intend to operate at any given time. MP will place cameras in selected areas in the hope that they will identify persons who believe fit the description of wanted criminals and or others. It is also hoped that the system will identify persons on the ‘missing list’.

Naturally, the human rights activists see police action as unnecessary, and in stating their objections, they have accused the MP of defying the warnings of its own watchdogs by hastily putting the operation into force. They have further stated that the system is far from accurate.

However, on the other side of the debate, Commissioner of Police Cressida Dick has defended the Police in its use of LFR and has accused the critics of being ill-informed in reaching their conclusions. She has been supported by her Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave, who is reported as saying that the MP has a duty to use new technology to keep people safe.

He said that 70 per cent of wanted suspects will be caught. It is believed that there is a bespoke list of persons wanted for serious and violent crimes, and eight criminals have been caught during recent operations.

There is little doubt that there is a Public Relations battle between the MP and Civil and Human rights activists regarding the moral right to use CCTV technology randomly in public places in general policing procedures.

However, the MP is confident that it is on the right path to protect citizens, and they have stated many reasons to justify their course of action. They have publicly stated that they use LFR to legitimately tackle serious crime, violence, gun and knife violations, child sexual exploitation and the protection of the vulnerable. They have also confirmed that there is a watch list of offenders wanted by the police or the courts of those who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.

As if to allay any thought of a Big Brother operation, MP has listed the laws and legislation that allow them to use LFR as an aspect of policing.

The use of LFR has seemingly crept up on a largely unsuspecting public. It could be the subject of debate for some time yet. Indeed, the European Community was recently mulling over the temporary imposition of a ban on its use to safeguard the rights of the individual. Of course, this is no longer relevant as Britain has exited the European Community.

As the arguments rage, there has been a call for an evidence gathering event on the technology used in LFR. The Biometrics and Forensic Ethics Group has already held such an inquiry and has received views from civil liberties groups on the ethical issues surrounding the use of LFG. Indeed, in some quarters, the question of fair treatment of all races is being raised and one is led to wonder, given the reality, whether black people could be disadvantaged.

There is also further concern that the use of LFR is not limited to the police and can be used by private operators.

In the UK, the whole matter has become one of grave and great concern to many who zealously guard their privacy and human rights. The police argue strongly that LFR is necessary because it is a useful tool which can be used to combat rising and violent crime in our society and therefore serves to protect innocent citizens.

Conversely opponents against its use see unfettered freedom to be of paramount importance to mankind’s development and that freedom should not be compromised or sacrificed.

They see that the rush along the modern route of technology used by the government and its agents could be the thin edge of the wedge and could lead to an infringement that would not be easily reversed.

I have already highlighted the nature of the winds that are currently blowing over the UK.

One hopes that a route is soon found to lead us out of this moral maze.

Vincent ‘Boo’ Nurse is a Barbadian living in London who is a retired Land Revenue Manager, Pensions and Investment Adviser. He is passionate about the development of his island home and the disapora.