Image source: GOV.UK, Open Government Licence v3.0
The Home Office has been criticised for its approach to biometrics in a report by the recently departed biometrics and surveillance commissioner.
Dr Fraser Sampson has said the department has too narrow a focus in concentrating almost exclusively on the regulatory framework for DNA and fingerprints, and not enough on emerging issues and new technologies. This is particularly significant in the need for future regulation on live facial recognition (LFR).
He has expressed the criticism and others in the newly published annual report for his office, which he completed shortly before moving on from the role to be replaced by Tony Eastaugh. The report is likely to be the last before the proposed abolition of the combined role under the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.
The report points to the use of LFR, body-worn video, drones and helicopter-borne cameras, saying there is a need for further guidance on the ethical and security issues in their use, and that their capabilities are not always fully understood by users. This leads to the need for more robust policy around procurement and ethical concerns.
The report raises other concerns about the use of national security determinations (NSDs) for the retention of biometric data. There have been occasions when IT issues have led to inaccurate information being used in the NSDs. This needs rectifying to help preserve public trust.
Abolition decision
Fraser also criticises the decision to abolish the joint role for surveillance and biometrics, describing the bill as a missed opportunity to rationalise and strengthen regulation and oversight in the field. This would remove a single point of contact for users and installers of equipment and the public, and no provision has been made to replace the activities.
In a letter to the home secretary written on the report’s completion last October, he said: “Having commissioned an independent analysis of the work of the office, the findings of which follow below, my views on abolition have not changed and, if anything, have been corroborated.
“It will be for others to consider those findings and decide what disparate resources will be required to plug the gaps that have been identified. At a time when many other jurisdictions value increasing oversight in the biometrics and surveillance camera arenas, it is peculiar that we appear to be moving in the opposite direction.”
