NBC ESARAH HAARMAN TALKS TO ONE MAN WAGING A LEGAL BATTLE
AGAINST THE USE OF SUCH
TECHNOLOGY IN THE UK.
>> Reporter: IN 2017 AN OFFICE
WORKER NAMED ED BRIDGES WAS
DOING SOME SHOPPING ON HIS LUNCH
BREAK.
BREAK. WHILE HE WAS OUT HIS FACE WAS
SCANNED BY POLICE CAMERAS AT
LEAST TWICE.
LEAST TWICE. TO BE COLLEAGUES, ED WAS NOT ON
ANY WATCH LIST, WASN’T SUSPECT
SUSPECTED OF ANY CRIME.
RATHER, HE WAS CAUGHT UP IN A
WIDE-SCALE POLICE AS USING OUGHT
MADE THE FACIAL RECOGNITION.
POLICE WERE USING IT ON
PEDESTRIANS THAT DAY, BUT ED
DIDN’T CONSENT TO THE FILM AND
SAID IT’S A VIOLATION OF HIS
HUMAN RIGHTS AND IS TAKING THE
POLICE TO COURT.
TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED.
HAPPENED. >> THE FIRST TIME I CAME ACROSS
THE OFFICIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY I POPPED OUT OF MY
OFFICE AT LUNCHTIME TO GO AND
TRY A SANDWICH AND PICK UP A FEW
THINGS JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND
ON THE MAIN PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING
CIRCUIT LIST WAS AS POLICE BAN,
POLICE GIVING OUT INFORMATION
AND SIGNAGE SO THE FIRST TIME I
REALIZED IT WAS FACIAL
RECOGNITION IS WHEN I WAS WITHIN
6 FEET OF IT.
BY THAT TIME MY IMAGE HAS
ALREADY BEEN CAPTURED SEVERAL
TIMES AND I FELT AS LAW-ABIDING
CITIZENS GOING ABOUT MY BUSINESS
THAT THAT WAS AN INVASION OF MY
PRIVACY IF YOU LIKE.
>> Reporter: THERE’S CCTV IN
BRITAIN EVERYWHERE.
BRITAIN EVERYWHERE. IF YOU GO OUTSIDE YOU’RE MOST
CERTAINLY BEING RECORD RECORDED.
HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?
>> IN SEVERAL KEY WAYS.
UNLIKE CCTV THERE’S NO CLEAR OR
LEGAL REGULATION AROUND
AUTOMATIC FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY.
TECHNOLOGY. IF I GO AND WATCH A FOOTBALL
MATCH OR IF I DO OPTIONS AND
POLICE ARE FILMING CROWDS, I
HAVE RIGHTS.
HAVE RIGHTS. AND THAT EQUIVALENT LEGISLATION
DOES NOT PROVIDE THE FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY. >> Reporter: SOME PEOPLE IN THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY WOULD
ARGUE THAT AT A TIME WHEN
BUDGETS ARE BEING LOST AND THEY
HAVE FEWER AND FEWER RESOURCES,
THIS IS A REAL VALUABLE TOOL
THAT HELPS CATCH BAD GUYS AND
KEEP US ALL SAFE.
HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
>> I DON’T QUIBBLE WITH THE FACT
THAT POLICE HAVE DWINDLING
RESOURCES AND THAT THIS IS A
POTENTIAL USEFUL TOOL BUT IT
COMES BACK THAT WE DON’T LIVE IN
AN AUTHORITARIAN REGIME, WE LIVE
IN A DEMOCRACY AND THEREFORE WE
NEED THE SUPPORT AND CONFIDENCE
OF THE PUBLIC AND IN ORDER DO
THAT THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE
THERE’S REVERSE MECHANISMS IN
PLACE, NOT JUST IN LAW BUT IN
TERMS OF BEST PRACTICE AND
GUIDANCE THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY IS
BEING USED IN A WAY THAT DOESN’T
INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE
MAJORITY.
MAJORITY. >> Reporter: WE REACHED OUT TO
THE SOUTH WALES POLICE
DEPARTMENT, BUT THEY COULDN’T
TALK TO US WHILE THE CASE IS
ONGOING.
ONGOING. THEY DID SEND US THIS STATEMENT
THOUGH.
THOUGH. THE FORCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY
COGNIZANT OF CONCERNS
SURROUNDING PRIVACY AND
UNDERSTAND THAT WE AS THE POLICE
MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE AND SUBJECT
TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF
SCRUTINY TO ENSURE THAT WE WORK
WITHIN THE LAW.
WE SEEK TRANSPARENT AND LAWFUL
USE OF LAWFUL AUTOMATED FACIAL
RECOGNITION.
RECOGNITION. IN A SEPARATE CASE A LONDON MAN
SPOTTED ONE OF THESE FACIAL
RECOGNITION CAMERAS ON THE
STREET AND TRIED TO COVER HIS
FACE.
FACE. POLICE STOPPED HIM AND FIND HIM
$115 FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
ED BRIDGES’ CASE-INS WALES IS
COMPLICATED.
COMPLICATED. THERE’S A LOT OF LEGAL MATTERS
TO CONSIDER AND A LOT OF
TECHNOLOGY AS WELL, BUT WHEN THE
VERDICT DOES COME DOWN AT SOME
POINT THIS SUMMER, IT WILL SET A
PRECEDENT, NOT ONLY FOR THE UK
BUT A MODEL FOR THE REST OF THE
WORLD LOOK AT AS WELL AND
CONSIDER HOW WE USE THIS