Metropolitan Police's policy over live facial recognition ‘unlawful'
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said the UK's biggest police force's rules and safeguards over using the tool 'fall short' and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights when used at protests.
The concerns come as the Met is set to deploy LFR, which captures people's faces in real-time CCTV cameras, at this year's Notting Hill Carnival over the August bank holiday weekend.
Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has already sought to reassure campaign groups that the technology will be used without bias.
The EHRC has been given permission to intervene in an upcoming judicial review over LFR, brought by privacy campaigner Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo and anti-knife crime community worker Shaun Thompson.
They are seeking the legal challenge claiming Mr Thompson was 'grossly mistreated' after LFR wrongly identified him as a criminal last year.
EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick said the technology, when used responsibly, can help combat serious crime and keep people safe, but the biometric data being processed is 'deeply personal'.
'The law is clear: everyone has the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. These rights are vital for any democratic society,' he said.
'As such, there must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards.
'We believe that the Metropolitan Police's current policy falls short of this standard. The Met, and other forces using this technology, need to ensure they deploy it in ways which are consistent with the law and with human rights.'
The watchdog said it believes the Met's policy is 'unlawful' because it is 'incompatible' with Articles 8, right to privacy, 10, freedom of expression, and 11, freedom of assembly and association of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Big Brother Watch interim director Rebecca Vincent said the involvement of EHRC in the judicial review was hugely welcome in the 'landmark legal challenge'.
'The rapid proliferation of invasive live facial recognition technology without any legislation governing its use is one of the most pressing human rights concerns in the UK today,' she said.
'Live facial recognition surveillance turns our faces into barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects who, as we've seen in Shaun's case, can be falsely accused, grossly mistreated and forced to prove our innocence to authorities.'
'Given this crucial ongoing legal action, the Home Office and police's investment in this dangerous and discriminatory technology is wholly inappropriate and must stop.'
It comes as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended plans to expand LFR across the country to catch 'high-harm' offenders last week.
Last month, the Metropolitan Police announced plans to expand its use of the technology across the capital.
Police bosses said LFR will now be used up to 10 times per week across five days, up from the current four times per week across two days.
The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Fox News hosts were determined to help Trump stay in office after 2020 election, legal filing says
The 2020 presidential election is history, but a legal dispute over Fox News' reporting on President Trump's false claims of voter fraud is heating up. A motion for summary judgment by voting equipment company Smartmatic filed Tuesday in New York Supreme Court laid out in detail how phony allegations that it manipulated votes to swing the election to Joe Biden were amplified on Fox News. The motion also described how the Fox News Media hosts who are defendants in the suit — the late Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business — were allegedly committed to helping Trump prove his fraud theories so he could remain in office. 'I work so hard for the President and the party,' Pirro wrote in a text to Ronna McDaniel, then chair of the Republican National Committee. Pirro left Fox News in May to become U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Smartmatic is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion in damages, claiming that the network's airing of the false statements hurt the London-based company's ability to expand its business in the U.S. Fox News settled a similar suit from Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million in 2023. The motion alleged that on-air hosts repeated the fraud claims even though executives and producers were told they were false. The Fox News research department, known as the 'Brainroom,' allegedly informed network producers that Smartmatic's role in the 2020 election was limited to Los Angeles County and that the company's software was not used in Dominion voting machines, another false claim made on the air. Fox News maintains the network's reporting on President Trump's false claims were newsworthy and protected by the 1st Amendment. But part of the company's legal strategy has been focused on minimizing the damage claims. Fox News has asserted that any problems Smartmatic has experienced in attracting new business are rooted not in its reporting but in the federal investigation into the company's activities with overseas governments. Last year, Smartmatic's founder, Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez, and two other company officials were indicted by the U.S. attorney's office and charged with bribing Philippine officials in order to get voting machine contracts in the country in 2016. While the Trump camp's assertions that the election was fixed were not believed throughout Fox News and parent company Fox Corp., the conservative-leaning network gave continued to give them oxygen to keep its audience tuned in, the motion alleged. The motion described a 'pivot' that occurred on Nov. 8, 2020, when then-Fox News Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan asked Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott to address the decline in the network's ratings after Biden was declared the winner of the election. The network also looked at research to evaluate why viewers were leaving. 'The conclusion reached based on performance analytics: give the audience more election fraud,' the court document stated. Such thinking, the filing said, permeated the company, already in a panic over losing viewers to right-leaning network Newsmax. The upstart outlet saw a ratings surge after Biden's win due to its unwavering support of Trump's claims. 'Think about how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL,' Fox News host Jesse Watters said in a text to his colleague Greg Gutfeld. Throughout November and December 2020, the three hosts named in the suit, Dobbs, Pirro and Bartiromo, repeatedly featured Trump's attorneys Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell as guests. They spread the falsehoods that Smartmatic software was used in Dominion voting machines and altered millions of votes. Smartmatic's work in Los Angeles during the 2020 election was meant to be an entry point for the company to expand its domestic business. The company's defamation suit claims that Fox News obliterated those efforts by presenting the false fraud claims. But Fox News believes that issues with Smartmatic's $282-million contract with Los Angeles County could help advance its case. On Aug. 1, federal prosecutors filing a legal brief alleging that taxpayer funds from the county went into a slush fund held by a shell company to help pay for its illegal activities. Federal prosecutors handling the case involving Smartmatic's business in the Philippines said they plan to detail similar alleged schemes out of L.A. County and Venezuela to show that the bribery fits a larger pattern. Fox News attorneys have filed a brief asking for county records that they believe will help bolster their case. The network is also expected to try to get the Smartmatic indictments in front of the court to raise doubts about the company's reputation. A Smartmatic representative said Fox News' records request is a diversion tactic. 'Fox lies and when caught they lie again to distract,' a Smartmatic representative said in a statement. 'Fox's latest filing is just another attempt to divert attention from its long-standing campaign of falsehoods and defamation against Smartmatic.' The company added that it abided with the law in Los Angeles County and 'every jurisdiction where we operate.' Smartmatic's Tuesday court filing also included information that contradicted public statements Fox News made at the time. The document alleged that Fox News fired political analyst Chris Stirewalt and longtime Washington bureau executives Bill Sammon for their involvement in calling the state of Arizona for Biden on election night. The early call of the close result in the state upset the Trump camp and alienated his supporters. At the time, Fox News said Stirewalt departed as part of a reorganization and Sammon retired. But the motion said Rupert Murdoch himself signed off on the decision to sever Stirewalt and Sammon from the company in an effort to assuage angry viewers who defected. The motion cited a communication from Dana Perino, co-host of Fox News show 'The Five,' describing a phone call with Stirewalt after his dismissal. 'I explained to him — you were right, you didn't cave, and you got fired for doing the right thing,' Perino said. Both Sammon and Stirewalt now work in the Washington bureau of NewsNation, the cable news network owned by Nexstar Media Group.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Smacking ban urged amid growing belief child physical punishment ‘unacceptable'
Belief among young adults that use of force against a child is unacceptable has grown stronger in recent years according to new polling which has prompted campaigners to make a fresh call for a change in the law. Wales made any type of corporal punishment, including smacking, hitting, slapping and shaking, illegal in March 2022, while Scotland introduced a similar ban in November 2020. But it is not completely outlawed in England and Northern Ireland. According to the Children Act 2004, it is unlawful to hit your child, except where it is 'reasonable punishment', and this is judged on a case-by-case basis. New polling for the NSPCC, carried out by YouGov, suggests around eight in 10 people (82%) aged between 18 and 24 believe it is unacceptable for a parent to use force, however slight, against a child. This is an increase from 64% of young adults who thought it was unacceptable when polled in 2023. Among parents specifically, the figures have remained high in recent years, with the latest polling showing 81% felt this way, up slightly from 80% last year and from 76% in 2022. YouGov surveyed 3,800 adults across England in July, of which 749 were parents with a child under 18 and 198 were aged 18 to 24 years old. Of all adults surveyed, 71% said they believe physical punishment against a child is unacceptable, up from 67% in 2023. Earlier this year leading health experts came together to urge parliamentarians to give children the 'fundamental right to safety and protection' by backing a smacking ban. The children's doctors and psychiatrists said decades of research showed the 'detrimental effects of physical punishment'. On the latest figures, NSPCC chief executive Chris Sherwood said: 'Parents and young people are telling us loud and clear that they don't want physical punishment to be a part of anyone's childhood. 'Parents know their children and what works best for them. It is therefore crucial their experiences and opinions are not ignored or undermined, but act as a wake-up call. 'As parliamentarians continue to debate the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we urge them to change the law to better reflect public attitudes to violence against children and ensure no childhood has to be tainted by physical punishment again.' In June, as part of debate on the Bill, Conservative peer Lord Jackson of Peterborough warned that introducing a smacking ban in England would be 'disproportionate and heavy-handed'. He argued 'reasonable chastisement' was harmless and calls to abolish it as a defence for punishing a child risked 'criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments'. But, in the wake of the murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in Woking in 2023, the UK's four children's commissioners jointly called for a wholesale smacking ban, describing the current situation where there is a legal defence in some nations as 'outdated and morally repugnant'. Sara's father – jailed for life in December 2024 alongside her stepmother for the little girl's murder – had claimed in a call to police after fleeing England that he 'did legally punish' his daughter and that he 'beat her up too much'. The children's commissioners insisted 'loving, well-meaning' parents have no need to be concerned about a change in the law. Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo's, said: 'Violence against children is unacceptable – and yet children continue to have less legal protection against physical assault than adults. That cannot be right. This new data shows that most parents agree. 'Physical punishment like smacking is harmful to a child's health and development, and there's strong evidence that it influences their attitudes toward violence. At Barnardo's, we see first-hand how vital it is for children to feel safe and nurtured by those around them and to develop positive, healthy relationships. 'We have long campaigned for a change in the law to give children equal protection from assault and continue to call for action. It's time for all children to be legally protected from all physical punishment everywhere in the UK.' Commenting on the poll, Professor Andrew Rowland, officer for child protection at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: 'This latest research makes it clear that physical punishment has no place in modern parenting. 'Health professionals stand firmly with parents and young people in recognising that physical punishment is not only outdated and unjust, but also harmful to children's health and wellbeing. 'We urge the Government to listen to parents, young people, health professionals and the wider public and to finally remove the outdated and unfair 'reasonable punishment' defence.' A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'The landmark Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a key part of our plan for change, represents the most transformative piece of child protection legislation in a generation, including wholesale reform of the children's social care system and better information sharing between education, health, and social workers to stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks. 'While we are looking closely at the legal changes made in Wales and Scotland in relation to smacking, we have no plans to legislate at this stage.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lucy Connolly set to be released from prison following jail term for hate tweet
Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for inciting racial hatred in the aftermath of the Southport terror attack, is reportedly set to be released from prison. Connolly, the wife of Conservative councillor Raymond Connolly, will be released on Thursday after being sentenced last year to 31 months in custody, the Telegraph reported. She had posted on X on the day of the murder of three children by Axel Rudakubana in Southport: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.' She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X and was jailed at Birmingham Crown Court in October last year. Her sentence has been criticised as being too harsh, but Sir Keir Starmer defended it earlier this year. The Prime Minister was asked in May about Connolly's case after her Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed. Asked during Prime Minister's Questions whether her imprisonment was an 'efficient or fair use' of prison, Sir Keir said: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts, and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. 'I am strongly in favour of free speech, we've had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' Connolly's post was viewed 310,000 times in three-and-a-half hours before she deleted it. Lord Young of Acton, founder and director of the Free Speech Union, said: 'The fact that Lucy Connolly has spent more than a year in prison for a single tweet that she quickly deleted and apologised for is a national scandal, particularly when Labour MPs, councillors and anti-racism campaigners who've said and done much worse have avoided jail. 'The same latitude they enjoyed should have been granted to Lucy.'
