Facial recognition errors put ethnic minorities at risk of wrongful arrest, police watchdog warns
Police officers risk arresting innocent people, especially from ethnic minorities, if they treat inaccurate facial recognition data as evidence, an official report has found.
The technology is seen as less controversial and less tricky to get right than live facial recognition, which is used in real time to find suspects.
A report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, published on Wednesday, found that some investigators didn’t know that RFR results were intelligence rather than evidence and required further enquiries before officers took enforcement action.
This creates a risk that people could be incorrectly identified or arrested, which could undermine public confidence in the technology.
We found that some investigators didn’t always carry out enough corroborative enquiries before acting on potential matches. In a small number of cases, officers relied too heavily on RFR results, which led to inappropriate investigative action.
The report also identified issues with bias in the algorithm, including being more likely to wrongly flag people from ethnic minorities as suspects.
Auditors found cases where users uploaded poor-quality or unsuitable probe images, including blurred images and images containing multiple faces. These factors reduced the system’s ability to return reliable matches.
Inspectors also found a risk of public confidence being undermined because custody images that should have been deleted were in fact kept.
Statutory framework lacking
The report says that legislation hasn’t kept up with changes in facial recognition technology and there is no comprehensive statutory framework governing this technology’s use.
This makes it more difficult for forces to understand the lawful basis for RFR’s use and what safeguards are needed to protect the public.
Police forces must be able to show that appropriate safeguards are in place, risks relating to bias and data retention are effectively managed, and decisions are still subject to human judgment. A clearer statutory framework, stronger national standards and improved governance and oversight arrangements are essential to maintaining public confidence.
Civil liberties concerns
Jasleen Chaggar from Big Brother Watch said the revelations that officers are treating facial recognition as bona fide evidence rather than a probability score is alarming.
This approach significantly increases the risk that more innocent people will have officers knock on their door to arrest them for crimes committed in towns they’ve never visited, as we’ve seen before.
Worse still, police aren’t even logging their use of retrospective facial recognition, meaning people could wrongfully become suspects in criminal investigations without even realising why they’ve been accused.
Police cannot be allowed to continue using the algorithm with so few safeguards and at biased settings that are more likely to misidentify women, Asian and black people and search against millions of unlawfully held custody images.
Police response
Ben Russell, lead on facial recognition for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said policing remains committed to the ethical, proportionate and responsible use of retrospective facial recognition to help investigate crime, bring offenders to justice and keep communities safe.
He said they are pleased that HMICFRS has recognised the exciting possibilities of this technology.
Prof Pete Fussey of the University of Southampton, formerly a police adviser on facial recognition, said meaningful human scrutiny of AI systems is a legal requirement, yet the report gives examples of investigators taking the computer’s suggestions at face value without further checks.
Related
