Connect with us

Tech

Home Office announces sweeping police technology plans | Computer Weekly

Published

on

Home Office announces sweeping police technology plans | Computer Weekly


The Home Office has outlined plans for the massive roll-out of artificial intelligence (AI) and facial-recognition technologies as part of sweeping reforms to the UK’s “broken” policing system.  

Announced 26 January 2026 by home secretary Shabana Mahmood, the reforms will see the Home Office place substantial investment into the deployment of AI and facial recognition throughout UK policing, while establishing a new National Police Service (NPS) to streamline the fragmented, 43-force model the UK currently operates under.

The government has said the new service will also subsume a range of existing central bodies, such as the National Crime Agency (NCA) and Counter Terrorism Policing, and will play a critical role in coordinating, adopting and standarising the use of data-driven technologies.

According to a whitepaper published by government on the reforms, deployments of AI and facial recognition vary markedly across forces, as each force making its own decisions and investments has resulted in “policing is radically under-utilising technology and data”.

It added that the current fragmentation of data and technology infrastructure – which are plagued by aging systems, manual processes and poor data quality – is slowing down investigations and leaving police unable to keep pace with the increasing rate of digitally enabled crime, which the Home Office said now accounts for nine of every 10 crimes.

“Criminals are operating in increasingly sophisticated ways. However, some police forces are still fighting crime with analogue methods,” said Mahmood. “We will roll out state-of-the-art tech to get more officers on the streets and put rapists and murderers behind bars.”

By also applying AI to some of the biggest administrative burdens facing police – including disclosure, analysis of CCTV footage, production of case files, crime recording and classification, and translating or transcribing documents – the Home Office claims it will free up six million policing hours each year.

“To meet this moment policing needs national leadership in how we develop and deploy technology, greater consistency in the recording, sharing and analysis of data, and a culture of responsible innovation so that successful local initiatives can be rolled out at scale,” said the whitepaper.

“A reformed system is an essential step in unlocking the potential of technology, data and AI in policing…By delivering police digital, data and technology infrastructure in a coherent and strategic manner at the national level for the first time, the NPS will ensure that officers and staff have access to the best available technology and insights. Ultimately, this will deliver smarter operational policing and save officer time, helping them focus on tackling crime and keeping the public safe.”

Under the reform proposals, the Home Office will increase the number of live facial-recognition (LFR) vans available to police from 10 to 50; set up a new National Centre for AI in Policing (to be known as Police.AI) to build, test and assure AI models for policing contexts; and invest £115m over three years to help identify, test and scale new AI technologies in policing.

Through Police.AI – which is expected to be up and running by spring 2026 – the department will create a registry of the AI being deployed by UK police, which will outline the steps they have taken to ensure the reliability of tools prior to their operational use. The new body will also help to roll out successful projects nationally, such as AI chatbots being trialled by some forces to triage non-urgent online queries.

Further investments being made into data and technology include £26m for the development and delivery of a national facial-recognition system, and another £11.6m on LFR capabilities.

The announcement of the policing reforms follows a judicial review hearing that challenged the lawfulness of the Metropolitan Police’s LFR use, and comes amid an ongoing consultation launched by the Home Office in December 2025 about a new legal framework for the technology.

In a recent interview with former prime minister Tony Blair, Mahmood described her ambition to use technologies such as AI and LFR to achieve Jeremy Bentham’s vision of a “panopticon”, referring to his proposed prison design that would allow a single, unseen guard to silently observe every prisoner at once.

Typically used today as a metaphor for authoritarian control, the underpinning idea of the panopticon is that by instilling a perpetual sense of being watched among the inmates, they would behave as authorities wanted.

“When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his panopticon,” Mahmood told Blair. “That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times.”

Responding to the policing reforms announced, Ruth Ehrlich, the interim director of external relations at campaign group Liberty, said: “Rolling out powerful surveillance tools while a consultation is still under way undermines public trust and shows disregard for our fundamental rights.”

She added that attempts by police forces to use AI and facial recognition have so far been “plagued by failure”.

“We have seen what happens when facial-recognition technology is rolled out without clear safeguards: children are wrongly placed on watchlists, and Black people are put at greater risk of being wrongly identified.”

Conservative MP David Davis also highlighted “significant error rates” in the use of digital facial ID and AI, telling the House of Commons on the day of the announcement that rolling out these technologies in a law enforcement context could risk “miscarriages of justice”, adding: “Innocent people fear this, particularly after the Post Office scandal, which showed that courts believe computers rather than people.”

While the use of LFR by police – beginning with the Met’s deployment at Notting Hill Carnival in August 2016 – has already ramped up massively in recent years, there has so far been minimal public debate or consultation, with the Home Office claiming for years that there is already “comprehensive” legal framework in place.

The department has said that although a “patchwork” legal framework for police facial recognition exists (including for the increasing use of the retrospective and “operator-initiated” versions of the technology), it does not give police themselves the confidence to “use it at significantly greater scale…nor does it consistently give the public the confidence that it will be used responsibly”.

When launching its consultation on a new framework for the tech, the Home Office added that the current rules governing police LFR use are “complicated and difficult to understand”, and that an ordinary member of the public would be required to read four pieces of legislation, police national guidance documents and a range of detailed legal or data protection documents from individual forces to fully understand the basis for LFR use on their high streets.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

I Tested Bosch’s New Vacuum Against Shark and Dyson. It Didn’t Beat Them

Published

on

I Tested Bosch’s New Vacuum Against Shark and Dyson. It Didn’t Beat Them


There’s a lever on the back for this compression mechanism that you manually press down and a separate button to open the dustbin at the bottom. You can use the compression lever when it’s both closed and open. It did help compress the hair and dust while I was vacuuming, helping me see if I had really filled the bin, though at a certain point it doesn’t compress much more. It was helpful to push debris out if needed too, versus the times I’ve had to stick my hand in both the Dyson and Shark to get the stuck hair and dust out. Dyson has this same feature on the Piston Animal V16, which is due out this year, so I’ll be curious to see which mechanism is better engineered.

Bendable Winner: Shark

Photograph: Nena Farrell

If you’re looking for a vacuum that can bend to reach under furniture, I prefer the Shark to the Bosch. Both have a similar mechanism and feel, but the Bosch tended to push debris around when I was using it with an active bend, while the Shark managed to vacuum up debris I couldn’t get with the Bosch without lifting it and placing it on top of that particular debris (in this case, rogue cat kibble).

Accessory Winner: Dyson

Dyson pulls ahead because the Dyson Gen5 Detect comes with three attachments and two heads. You’ll get a Motorbar head, a Fluffy Optic head, a hair tool, a combination tool, and a dusting and crevice tool that’s actually built into the stick tube. I love that it’s built into the vacuum so that it’s one less separate attachment to carry around, and it makes me more likely to use it.

But Bosch does well in this area, too. You’ll get an upholstery nozzle, a furniture brush, and a crevice nozzle. It’s one more attachment than you’ll get with Shark, and Bosch also includes a wall mount that you can wire the charging cord into for storage and charging, and you can mount two attachments on it. But I will say, I like that Shark includes a simple tote bag to store the attachments in. The rest of my attachments are in plastic bags for each vacuum, and keeping track of attachments is the most annoying part of a cordless vacuum.

Build Winner: Tie

Image may contain Appliance Device Electrical Device Vacuum Cleaner Mace Club and Weapon

Photograph: Nena Farrell

All three of these vacuums have a good build quality, but each one feels like it focuses on something different. Bosch feels the lightest of the three and stands up the easiest on its own, but all three do need something to lean against to stay upright. The Dyson is the worst at this; it also needs a ledge or table wedged under the canister, or it’ll roll forward and tip over. The Bosch has a sleek black look and a colorful LED screen that will show you a picture of carpet or hardwood depending on what mode it’s vacuuming in. The vacuum head itself feels like the lightest plastic of the bunch, though.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Right-Wing Gun Enthusiasts and Extremists Are Working Overtime to Justify Alex Pretti’s Killing

Published

on

Right-Wing Gun Enthusiasts and Extremists Are Working Overtime to Justify Alex Pretti’s Killing


Brandon Herrera, a prominent gun influencer with over 4 million followers on YouTube, said in a video posted this week that while it was unfortunate that Pretti died, ultimately the fault was his own.

“Pretti didn’t deserve to die, but it also wasn’t just a baseless execution,” Herrera said, adding without evidence that Pretti’s purpose was to disrupt ICE operations. “If you’re interfering with arrests and things like that, that’s a crime. If you get in the fucking officer’s way, that will probably be escalated to physical force, whether it’s arresting you or just getting you the fuck out of the way, which then can lead to a tussle, which, if you’re armed, can lead to a fatal shooting.” He described the situation as “lawful but awful.”

Herrera was joined in the video by former police officer and fellow gun influencer Cody Garrett, known online as Donut Operator.

Both men took the opportunity to deride immigrants, with Herrera saying “every news outlet is going to jump onto this because it’s current thing and they’re going to ignore the 12 drunk drivers who killed you know, American citizens yesterday that were all illegals or H-1Bs or whatever.”

Herrera also referenced his “friend” Kyle Rittenhouse, who has become central to much of the debate about the shooting.

On August 25, 2020, Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, traveled from his home in Illinois to a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, brandishing an AR-15-style rifle, claiming he was there to protect local businesses. He killed two people and shot another in the arm that night.

Critics of ICE’s actions in Minneapolis quickly highlighted what they saw as the hypocrisy of the right’s defense of Rittenhouse and attacks on Pretti.

“Kyle Rittenhouse was a conservative hero for walking into a protest actually brandishing a weapon, but this guy who had a legal permit to carry and already had had his gun removed is to some people an instigator, when he was actually going to help a woman,” Jessica Tarlov, a Democratic strategist, said on Fox News this week.

Rittenhouse also waded into the debate, writing on X: “The correct way to approach law enforcement when armed,” above a picture of himself with his hands up in front of police after he killed two people. He added in another post that “ICE messed up.”

The claim that Pretti was to blame was repeated in private Facebook groups run by armed militias, according to data shared with WIRED by the Tech Transparency Project, as well as on extremist Telegram channels.

“I’m sorry for him and his family,” one member of a Facebook group called American Patriots wrote. “My question though, why did he go to these riots armed with a gun and extra magazines if he wasn’t planning on using them?”

Some extremist groups, such as the far-right Boogaloo movement, have been highly critical of the administration’s comments on being armed at a protest.

“To the ‘dont bring a gun to a protest’ crowd, fuck you,” one member of a private Boogaloo group wrote on Facebook this week. “To the fucking turn coats thinking disarming is the answer and dont think it would happen to you as well, fuck you. To the federal government who I’ve watched murder citizens just for saying no to them, fuck you. Shall not be infringed.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

After Minneapolis, Tech CEOs Are Struggling to Stay Silent

Published

on

After Minneapolis, Tech CEOs Are Struggling to Stay Silent


It was November 12, 2016, four days after Donald Trump won his first presidential election. Aside from a few outliers (looking at you, Peter Thiel), almost everyone in the tech world was shocked and appalled. At a conference I attended that Thursday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said it was “a pretty crazy idea” to think that his company had anything to do with the outcome. The following Saturday, I was leaving my favorite breakfast place in downtown Palo Alto when I ran into Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple. We knew each other, but at that point, I had never really sat down with him to do a deep interview. But this was a moment when raw emotions were triggering all sorts of conversations, even between journalists and famously cautious executives. We ended up talking for what must have been 20 minutes.

I won’t go into the particulars of a private conversation. But it will surprise no one to hear what was mutually understood on that streetcorner: We were two people stunned at what had happened and shared the same unspoken belief that it was not good.

I have thought back to that day many times, certainly last year when Cook gifted President Trump a glitzy Apple sculpture with a 24k gold base, and most recently this past weekend when he attended a White House screening of the $40 million vanity documentary about Melania Trump. The event, which also included Amazon CEO Andy Jassy (whose company funded the project) and AMD CEO Lisa Su, took place only hours after the Trump administration’s masked army in Minneapolis put 10 bullets into 37-year-old Department of Veterans Affairs ICU nurse Alex Pretti. Also, a snowstorm was coming, which would have provided a good excuse to miss an event that might very well haunt its attendees for the rest of their lives. But there was Cook, feting a competitor’s media product, looking sharp in a tuxedo, and posing with the movie’s director, who hadn’t worked since he was accused of sexual misconduct or harassment by half a dozen women. (He has denied the allegations.)

Cook’s presence reflects the behavior of many of his peers in the trillion-dollar tech CEO club, all of whom run businesses highly vulnerable to the president’s potential ire. During Trump’s first term, CEOs of companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google straddled a tightrope between objecting to policies that violated their company’s values and cooperating with the federal government. In the past year, however, their default strategy, executed with varying degrees of enthusiasm, has been to lavishly flatter the president and cut deals where Trump can claim wins. These executives have also funneled millions toward Trump’s inauguration, his future presidential library, and the humongous ballroom that he is building to replace the demolished East Wing of the White House. In return, the corporate leaders hoped to blunt the impact of tariffs and avoid onerous regulations.

This behavior disappointed a lot of people, including me. When Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, he was seen as a civic hero, but now he is molding the opinion pages of that venerable institution into that of a White House cheerleader. Zuckerberg once cofounded a group that advocated for immigration reform and penned an op-ed bemoaning the uncertain future of a young entrepreneur he was coaching who happened to be undocumented. Last year, Zuckerberg formally cut ties with the group, but by then he had already positioned himself as a Trump toady.

When Googlers protested Trump’s immigration policies during his first term, cofounder Sergey Brin joined their march. “I wouldn’t be where I am today or have any kind of the life that I have today if this was not a brave country that really stood out and spoke for liberty,” said Brin, whose family had escaped Russia when he was 6. Today, families like his are being pulled out of their cars and classrooms, sent to detention centers, and flown out of the country. Brin and fellow cofounder Larry Page built their search engine on the kind of government grant that the Trump administration no longer supports. Nonetheless, Brin is a Trump supporter. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, himself an immigrant, oversaw Google’s $22 million contribution to the White House ballroom and was among tech grandees flattering Trump at a September White House dinner where CEOs competed to see who could pander to Trump the most insincerely. Another immigrant, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, once slammed Trump’s first-term policies as “cruel and abusive.” In 2025, he was among those offering hosannas to the president.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending