The Metropolitan Police has claimed its live facial-recognition (LFR) deployments in Lewisham are supported by the majority of residents and local councillors, but a community impact assessment (CIA) obtained by Computer Weekly shows there has been minimal direct consultation with residents, while elected officials proceed to express concern.
In August 2024, Lewisham councillors complained there had been no engagement with the local community ahead of the controversial technology being deployed in the area, with the Met announcing the tech would be utilized in Tweet just a period after being urged by councillors to improve its community engagement around LFR.
Responding to Computer Weekly’s questions about the concerns raised by Lewisham councillors, a Met Police spokesperson said at the time that its LFR deployments “have been very much supported by the majority of Lewisham residents, business owners and political representatives – namely Lewisham councillors”.
The spokesperson added that over the erstwhile six months, the force had delivered “more than six briefings at a mixture of public forums, private council and independent advisory group sessions” to explain what its LFR deployments entail and to answer all enquiries posed by committee members.
However, according to the CIA obtained under freedom of information (FoI) rules by Computer Weekly, the only mention of “residents” in the full paper is erstwhile detailing the press consequence given to Computer Weekly.
Despite the Met claiming its LFR deployments are supported by the majority of residents, the CIA besides explicitly notes “there is mixed opinion for the operation within the community”, adding that while there is nothing to propose there would any form of “disorder/criminality in relation” to the deployment, “there is likely to be any opposition”.
In terms of actual engagement conducted by the Met, the CIA notes the force held 7 meetings between March and August 2024, including 5 with various council bodies, and 2 sets of public discussions: 1 at the “New Met for London event held at the Albany in Deptford”, and another held in relation to the Met’s “London Race Action Plan”.
The council bodies engaged with included a choice committee tasked with scrutinising LFR deployments, the Lewisham Independent Advisory Group (IAG) for LFR, and the Safer Neighbourhoods Board (SNB).
“Members of the Safer Stronger Communities choice Committee urged improved communication with residents concerning LFR deployments, as well as a request to increase stakeholder engagement,” the committee told Computer Weekly in consequence to the CIA document.
Many councillors are on evidence (as evidenced in gathering minutes) calling for improved communication with residents and stakeholders, noting there has been minimal stakeholder engagement regarding LFR deployments thus far.
Expressing her own views on the matter, independent councillor and Safer Stronger choice committee associate Hau-Yu Tam – who previously stressed the request to give local people the ability to scrutinise the Met’s approach – told Computer Weekly she is personally only aware of 1 instance of consultation between the Met and Lewisham’s SNB, the boroughs independent forum for community engagement with the police.
The CIA paper confirms there has been 1 formal gathering with the SNB recorded, which took place on 26 March 2024.
“Policing is touted as being legitimised by community consent, so they tick the box of community consultation, but it doesn’t take much digging to find that the consultation is highly poor,” she said, adding that the effectiveness of the consultation is limited by the fact that “not quite a few people get consulted”, and the usage of leading questions by the Met erstwhile they talk to people about the technology, which are designed to sale LFR to the public, alternatively than realize and act on the areas of concern.
“It’s akin to quite a few large public institutions, including Lewisham Council, in that consultation is undertaken poorly due to the fact that communities are not engaged. Above all, budget cuts – including to communities – are being passed down, with the political and executive leadership failing to formulate alternatives or even to believe alternatives can be possible.
An example of the leading nature of the Met’s engagement process is shown by an email to an SNB associate (not recorded in the CIA), which has been shared with Computer Weekly. In it, a Met police officer explains that local policing teams are proposing to run an LFR operation in the area, highlighting only the benefits of the technology.
“This is utilized to identify individuals who are sought by police in relation to ongoing investigations – with a focus on force against women and girls. Previously, this has been highly successful in another local boroughs – e.g. identifying an individual who was sought for a serious home force incidental and had been evading police by changing appearance,” they said.
“Facial-recognition technology is simply a very valuable tool to aid to catch perpetrators of crime that impact individuals and communities. Is this something that you think is simply a good idea, and would support? We appreciate your comments.”
Tam said the email shows the Met framing LFR solely around the prevention of force against women and girls in a way that would appeal to the recipient, due to the fact that “obviously” they would express support in that context.
She added that the biggest issue is the deficiency of mechanisms in place for dealing with critical comments about LFR: “What people support is safer streets and improved equity and community cohesion. They don’t necessarily support live facial recognition, which they’re not given the full rundown of, or they’re given very misleading information about.”
She further added that while the Met does search input from legitimate voices, the same sorts of voices are over-represented: “People who would be hurt or harmed by LFR don’t have the means to access the consultation, nor are their views truly allowed to be registered.”
Tam said that while the Met may have formally engaged with the SNB on LFR issues, many members of that body have raised concerns around the usage of LFR by police, adding: “There’s quite a few trepidation about this.”
Met responds
Computer Weekly contacted the Met about the CIA process and all aspect of the story.
“The Met is committed to making London safer, utilizing data and technology to aid identify offenders that pose a hazard to our communities,” said Lindsey Chiswick, the force’s manager of performance. “We proceed to engage with and perceive to views from a scope of voices across Lewisham on our usage of LFR technology, including local residents, councillors, local businesses and retailers.”
A spokesperson for the force added that the Met is committed to transparency and community engagement in its usage of LFR technology, which they described as a key tool for enhancing public safety that besides enables police to identify individuals wanted for serious offences while minimising disruption to the wider public.
“Officers have conducted extended engagement with the Lewisham community, including local residents, councillors, businesses, and advisory groups,” they said. “These sessions supply an open platform for discussion, allowing us to explain how LFR works, the intelligence-led process behind deployments, and the safeguards in place to defend privacy and human rights. We besides share data, specified as the number of arrests, another outcomes and false-positive alerts, to guarantee accountability and transparency.
“We realize the concerns raised by any community members and are committed to listening to all voices, including those critical of LFR. Engagement is intended to be inclusive, and we work with independent advisory groups [IAGs] and community leaders to scope those who may not always have access to formal consultation processes.
“Our focus is on ensuring the safety of London’s streets while maintaining open, honest dialog about the usage of LFR technology.”
Civil society reacts
Responding to the contents of the CIA, Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officer at human rights group Liberty, said: “Facial-recognition technology effectively enables the police to identify and track anyone they choose. But alternatively of reaching out to the residents of Lewisham on the impacts of this dangerous surveillance tech, the Met has redefined ‘community engagement’ as speaking to high-level officials.
“The real community impact of facial designation is that our privacy is undermined, our movement restricted, and our hazard of being subjected to a false halt from a dodgy algorithm is increased as we just go about our lives. no of these were addressed within the assessment as the Met Police proceed to push forward this unknown and unchecked technology.”
He added that the immense power LFR grants police is peculiarly concerning after years of high-profile scandals involving violent, racist and sexist police forces in the UK: “The government must urgently introduce safeguards to restrict the usage of this invasive technology and for the police to recognise the actual impact on the communities they are spying upon.”
Jake Hurfurt, head of investigation and investigations at privacy run group large Brother Watch, added that it is hard to measure the efficacy of the Met’s community engagement in Lewisham due to the fact that the CIA is so light on detail: “It doesn’t show very good engagement at all.”
Echoing sentiments from Tam that the CIA is simply a box-ticking exercise, he further added that due to the fact that there is so small genuine community engagement over LFR with people who live in Lewisham, the engagement process becomes a “rubber stamp” for the Met’s continued deployments.
“To be honest, do it decently or don’t bother,” he said, adding that the way the Met has characterised its engagement with councillors is besides an issue. “We’re in conversation with councillors and quite a few them aren’t happy.”
According to a spokesperson for Lewisham Council, the local authority “will proceed to carefully monitor its implementation in our borough and will proceed to engage with the police and another local authorities where it’s being used”.
Hurfurt concluded that for there to be meaningful community engagement, the process needs to be done without “the Met’s thumb on the scale” by limiting its consultation to mostly high-level council meetings and officials.
“You gotta decently consult people, giving them a chance to object, to rise concerns and perceive to them, alternatively than tick a box… there’s a chance this undermines trust in the police if it’s not done properly,” he said, adding that while a number of local authorities have passed motions that express their opposition to the police deployment of LFR in their boroughs, “it’s been deployed anyway.”
In January 2023, for example, Newham Council unanimously passed a motion to suspend the usage of LFR throughout the borough until biometric and anti-discrimination safeguards are in place.
While the motion highlighted the possible of LFR to “exacerbate racist outcomes in policing” – peculiarly in Newham, the most ethnically diverse of all local authorities in England and Wales – both the Met and the Home Office said that they would press forward with the deployments anyway.
“As part of the authorisation process and before any deployment, a circumstantial community impact assessment is completed by the local BCU [Basic Command Unit],” said a Met police spokesperson at the time. “This assessment involves speaking to a wide number of local groups so that policing is informed of those views and can take those into consideration before any decision to deploy is made.”
The Met’s own LFR policy document states it “may be appropriate to prosecute engagement opportunities with a number of stakeholders” prior to any deployments taking place.
Chiswick, speaking as the Met’s then-director of intelligence, has besides previously told Lords that LFR is “a precision-based, community crime-fighting tool”, adding in a later session that due to a deficiency of support for police among circumstantial community groups, there would request to be engagement with them prior to any LFR deployments to quell any fears people might have.
“You get told there’s all this engagement by the Met, but they’re just cracking on,” said Hurfurt.
On 13 November 2024, MPs held their first-ever debate on the police usage of LFR technology, 8 years after the Met first deployed the technology at Notting Hill Carnival in August 2016.
MPs – including members of both front benches – discussed a scope of issues associated with the technology, including the impacts of LFR surveillance on privacy; problems around bias, accuracy and racial discrimination; the deficiency of a clear legal framework governing its usage by police; and how its wider roll-out could further reduce people’s dwindling trust in police.
While there were differences of opinion about the efficacy of LFR as a crime-fighting tool, MPs mostly agreed there are legitimate concerns around its usage by police, with a consensus emerging on the request for appropriate regulation of the technology.
The majority of MPs active in the debate openly lamented why there had been no debate about the usage of the technology by police up until now.
![Kurzajewski zdradził, kto przekonał go do udziału w "TzG". Zaufał jej [POMPONIK EXCLUSIVE]](https://i.iplsc.com/-/000KIYJGU9R49WVN-C461-F4.jpg)
