Met Police Challenged on Claim LFR Supported by ‘Majority of Lewisham Residents’

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has faced criticism over its claim that the majority of Lewisham residents support the use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology in the area. The controversy surrounding LFR has sparked a heated debate about the balance between public safety and individual privacy rights.

Background: What is Live Facial Recognition?

LFR is a technology that uses cameras to capture images of people’s faces and compare them to a database of known individuals. The MPS has been using LFR in various parts of London, including Lewisham, to identify and track individuals suspected of crimes. However, the use of LFR has raised concerns about its accuracy, bias, and impact on civil liberties.

The Met Police’s Claim: A Majority of Lewisham Residents Support LFR

In a statement, the MPS claimed that the majority of Lewisham residents support the use of LFR in the area. However, this claim has been disputed by local residents, campaigners, and politicians. Critics argue that the MPS has failed to provide evidence to support its claim and that the use of LFR is not transparent or accountable.

Criticisms of the Met Police’s Claim

Critics of the MPS’s claim argue that it is based on flawed assumptions and a lack of evidence. Some of the key criticisms include:

• Lack of transparency: The MPS has not provided clear information about how LFR is being used in Lewisham, including the number of cameras, the locations, and the criteria for identifying individuals.
• Lack of consultation: Local residents and campaigners argue that they were not consulted about the introduction of LFR in Lewisham and that their concerns have been ignored.
• Lack of evidence: There is limited evidence to support the claim that LFR is effective in reducing crime or improving public safety.
• Concerns about bias: LFR technology has been criticized for its potential bias against certain groups, including people of color and women.

The Impact on Civil Liberties

The use of LFR has significant implications for civil liberties, including the right to privacy and the right to freedom of assembly. Critics argue that LFR is a form of mass surveillance that can be used to track and monitor individuals without their consent.

The use of LFR also raises concerns about the potential for abuse of power and the impact on marginalized communities. For example, LFR can be used to target specific groups, such as protesters or minority communities, and to gather intelligence on their activities.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

To address the concerns surrounding LFR, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability. This includes:

• Clear information about how LFR is being used, including the number of cameras and the locations.
• Regular consultations with local residents and campaigners to ensure that their concerns are heard.
• Independent oversight and review of the use of LFR to ensure that it is being used lawfully and proportionately.
• Measures to address the potential bias of LFR technology and to ensure that it is not used to discriminate against certain groups.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding LFR in Lewisham highlights the need for a more nuanced and informed debate about the use of surveillance technology in our communities. While the MPS may claim that the majority of Lewisham residents support LFR, this claim is disputed by many and lacks evidence.

To address the concerns surrounding LFR, there is a need for greater transparency, accountability, and oversight. This includes regular consultations with local residents and campaigners, independent review of the use of LFR, and measures to address the potential bias of the technology.

Ultimately, the use of LFR must be guided by a commitment to protecting human rights and promoting public safety in a way that is transparent, accountable, and proportionate.

Recommendations

To address the concerns surrounding LFR, we recommend the following:

• The MPS should provide clear information about how LFR is being used in Lewisham, including the number of cameras and the locations.
• The MPS should engage in regular consultations with local residents and campaigners to ensure that their concerns are heard.
• The MPS should establish an independent oversight body to review the use of LFR and ensure that it is being used lawfully and proportionately.
• The MPS should take measures to address the potential bias of LFR technology and ensure that it is not used to discriminate against certain groups.

By taking these steps, we can ensure that the use of LFR is guided by a commitment to protecting human rights and promoting public safety in a way that is transparent, accountable, and proportionate.