#DataProtectionChallenges

[thxnews]

UK Faces Oversight Void in Biometrics and Surveillance

  The Looming Void in Biometrics Oversight

A new report has raised concerns about a significant gap in the UK's government plans to oversee biometrics and surveillance. The report, produced independently, warns that the UK's decision to eliminate existing safeguards in this field without providing suitable replacements could result in a lack of proper oversight at a time when advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies necessitate increased vigilance.   The Impact of Abolishing Oversight The Centre for Research into Information Surveillance and Privacy (CRISP) has published a report that assesses the potential consequences of abolishing the roles of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC) and the requirement for the government to publish a surveillance camera code of practice. Currently, the BSCC oversees police use of DNA and fingerprints in England and Wales and is also responsible for encouraging the proper use of public space surveillance cameras. However, it is expected that both roles will be eliminated when the government's Data Protection and Digital Information Bill becomes law in Spring 2024. The 67-page report, commissioned by the BSCC following discussions with the Home Office, acknowledges that the government has made arrangements for the transfer and continuation of the BSCC's quasi-judicial functions related to police applications to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints of individuals arrested but not convicted of serious crimes, as well as reviewing National Security Determinations (NSDs) allowing police to retain biometrics on national security grounds.  

Critical Gaps in Oversight

The report highlights areas where the government has not made specific plans to retain other crucial BSCC oversight functions. These include reviewing how police handle DNA samples, DNA profiles, and fingerprints, maintaining an up-to-date surveillance camera code of practice, setting technical and governance standards for public body surveillance systems, providing guidance on technical and procurement matters for future surveillance systems, and submitting reports to the Home Secretary and Parliament on public surveillance and biometrics matters. The loss of the surveillance camera code is particularly concerning. The code is highly regarded among security and surveillance practitioners, and its elimination could lead to a lack of oversight and regulation. Experts in the field, including Alex Carmichael from the Security Systems and Alarms Inspection Board, emphasize the importance of maintaining oversight to address emerging technologies and ethical implications, particularly concerning facial recognition technology.   A Concerned Commissioner The current Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, has expressed his concerns. He warns that without government action, there will be a worrying void in overseeing and regulating essential areas of public life. He stresses the need for proper oversight and regulation to protect citizens' privacy and rights while harnessing the potential benefits of technology.  

The Loss of the Surveillance Camera Code

The planned loss of the surveillance camera code, the sole legal instrument that governs public space surveillance in the UK, exemplifies what will be forfeited without action. The police, local authorities, and the surveillance industry have widely respected and used the code for over a decade. It guides facial recognition deployment and inclusion on watchlists and promotes consistency in local police policies on facial recognition. Despite its importance, there are no plans to replace the surveillance camera code. This decision has raised concerns among senior police officers and academics. They argue that treating public space surveillance solely as a data protection issue overlooks broader concerns about surveillance technologies and their potential for misuse. These technologies can operate in ways that may not raise significant data protection concerns but still carry risks related to government power and citizen privacy.   Inadequate Arguments for Change The report's authors, surveillance experts Professors Pete Fussey and William Webster, challenge the government's claims that other entities duplicate non-judicial BSCC functions, thus negating the need for replacement. They argue that these claims do not hold up to scrutiny, especially the notion that the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) can seamlessly assume many BSCC functions. This perspective fails to acknowledge the full scope of surveillance-related concerns.  

Timing Matters

The report also questions the timing of the planned changes. At a time when surveillance technology is rapidly evolving, especially in biometrics, and public concerns about surveillance and AI are on the rise, rolling back oversight could exacerbate debates around surveillance. Removing oversight at this specific time might further divide the debate, making it harder for surveillance users to gain trust and legitimacy within the communities they serve. In conclusion, the report highlights the critical need for robust oversight and regulation in the field of biometrics and surveillance, especially with the rapid advancements in technology. The potential loss of oversight and safeguards is a matter of concern, and addressing these issues is crucial for the protection of citizens' privacy and rights.   Sources: THX News & Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. Read the full article