Connect with us

Tech

ICO publishes summary of police facial recognition audit | Computer Weekly

Published

on

ICO publishes summary of police facial recognition audit | Computer Weekly


The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has completed its first-ever data protection audit of UK police forces deploying facial recognition technologies (FRT), noting it is “encouraged” by its findings.

The ICO’s audit, which investigated how South Wales Police and Gwent Police are using and protecting people’s personal information when deploying facial recognition, marks the first time the data regulator has formally audited a UK police force for its use of the technology.

According to an executive summary published on 20 August, the scope of the facial recognition audit – which was agreed with the two police forces beforehand – focused on questions of necessity and proportionality (a key legal test for the deployment of new technologies), whether its design meets expectations around fairness and accuracy, and whether “the end-to-end process” is compliant with the UK’s data protection rules.

“We are encouraged by the findings, which provide a high level of assurance that the processes and procedures currently in place at South Wales Police and Gwent Police are compliant with data protection law,” said the deputy commissioner for regulatory policy, Emily Keaney, in a blog post.

“The forces made sure there was human oversight from trained staff to mitigate the risk of discrimination and ensure no decisions are solely automated, and a formal application process to assess the necessity and proportionality before each LFR deployment,” she wrote.

The executive summary added that South Wales Police and Gwent Police have “comprehensively mapped” their data flows, can “demonstrate the lawful provenance” of the images used to generate biometric templates, and have appropriate data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) in place.

It further added that the data collected “is adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for its purpose”, and that individuals are informed about its use “in a clear and accessible manner”.

However, Keaney was clear that the audit only “serves as a snapshot in time” of how the technology is being used by the two police forces in question. “It does not give the green light to all police forces, but those wishing to deploy FRT can learn from the areas of assurance and areas for improvement revealed by the audit summary,” she said.

Commenting on the audit, chief superintendent Tim Morgan of the joint South Wales and Gwent digital services department, said: “The level of oversight and independent scrutiny of facial recognition technology means that we are now in a stronger position than ever before to be able to demonstrate to the communities of South Wales and Gwent that our use of the technology is fair, legitimate, ethical and proportionate.

“We welcome the work of the Information Commissioner’s Office audit, which provides us with independent assurance of the extent to which both forces are complying with data protection legislation.”

He added: “It is important to remember that use of this has never resulted in a wrongful arrest in South Wales and there have been no false alerts for several years as the technology and our understanding has evolved.”

Lack of detail

While the ICO provided a number of recommendations to the police forces, it did not provide any specifics in the executive summary beyond the priority level of the recommendation and whether it applied to the forces’ use of live or retrospective facial recognition (LFR or RFR).

For LFR, it said it made four “medium” and one “low” priority recommendations, while for RFR, it said it made six “medium” and four “low” priority recommendations. For each, it listed one “high” priority recommendation.

Computer Weekly contacted the ICO for more information about the recommendations, but received no response on this point.

Although the summary lists some “key areas for improvement” around data retention policies and the need to periodically review various internal procedures, key questions about the deployments are left unanswered by the ICO’s published material on the audit.

For example, before they can deploy any facial recognition technology, UK police forces must ensure their deployments are “authorised by law”, that the consequent interference with rights – such as the right to privacy – is undertaken for a legally “recognised” or “legitimate” aim, and that this interference is both necessary and proportionate. This must be assessed for each individual deployment of the tech.

However, beyond noting that processes are in place, no detail was provided by the ICO on how the police forces are assessing the necessity and proportionality of their deployments, or how these are assessed in the context of watchlist creation.

Although more detail on proportionality and necessity considerations is provided in South Wales Police’s LFR DPIA, it is unclear if any of the ICO’s recommendations concern this process.  

While police forces using facial recognition have long maintained that their deployments are intelligence-led and focus exclusively on locating individuals wanted for serious crimes, senior officers from the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police previously admitted to a Lords committee in December 2023 that both forces select images for their watchlists based on crime categories attached to people’s photos, rather than a context-specific assessment of the threat presented by a given individual.

Computer Weekly asked the ICO whether it is able to confirm if this is still the process for selecting watchlist images at South Wales Police, as well as details on how well police are assessing the proportionality and necessity of their deployments generally, but received no response on these points.

While the ICO summary claims the forces are able to demonstrate the “lawful provenance” of watchlist images, the regulator similarly did not respond to Computer Weekly’s questions about what processes are in place to ensure that the millions of unlawfully held custody images in the Police National Database (PND) are not included in facial recognition watchlists.

Computer Weekly also asked why the ICO is only beginning to audit police facial recognition use now, given that it was first deployed by the Met in August 2016 and has been controversial since its inception.

“The ICO has played an active role in the regulation of FRT since its first use by the Met and South Wales Police around 10 years ago. We investigated the use of FRT by the Met and South Wales and Gwent police and produced an accompanying opinion in 2021. We intervened in the Bridges case on the side of the claimant. We have produced follow-up guidance on our expectations of police forces,” said an ICO spokesperson.

“We are stepping up our supervision of AI [artificial intelligence] and biometric technologies – our new strategy includes a specific focus on the use of FRT by police forces. We are conducting an FRT in Policing project under our AI and biometrics strategy. Audits form a core part of this project, which aims to create clear regulatory expectations and scalable good practice that will influence the wider AI and biometrics landscape.

“Our recommendations in a given audit are context-specific, but any findings that have applicability to other police forces will be included in our Outcomes Report due in spring 2026, once we have completed the rest of the audits in this series.”

EHRC joins judicial review

In mid-August 2025, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was granted permission to intervene in an upcoming judicial review of the Met Police’s use of LFR technology, which it claims is being deployed unlawfully.

“The law is clear: everyone has the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. These rights are vital for any democratic society,” said EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick.

“As such, there must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. We believe that the Metropolitan Police’s current policy falls short of this standard.”

He added: “The Met, and other forces using this technology, need to ensure they deploy it in ways which are consistent with the law and with human rights.”

Writing in a blog about the EHRC joining the judicial review, Chris Pounder, director of data protection training firm Amberhawk, said that, in his view, the statement from Kirkpatrick is “precisely the kind of statement that should have been made by” information commissioner John Edwards.

“In addition, the ICO has stressed the need for FRT deployment ‘with appropriate safeguards in place’. If he [Edwards] joined the judicial review process as an interested party, he could get judicial approval for these much vaunted safeguards (which nobody has seen),” he wrote.

“Instead, the ICO sits on the fence whilst others determine whether or not current FRT processing by the Met Police is ‘strictly necessary’ for its law enforcement functions. The home secretary, for her part, has promised a code of practice which will contain an inevitable bias in favour of the deployment of FRT.”

In an appearance before the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee on 8 July, home secretary Yvette Cooper confirmed the government is actively working with police forces and unspecified “stakeholders” to draw up a new governance framework for police facial recognition.

However, she did not comment on whether any new framework would be placed on a statutory footing.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Tech

The 5 Big ‘Known Unknowns’ of Donald Trump’s New War With Iran

Published

on

The 5 Big ‘Known Unknowns’ of Donald Trump’s New War With Iran


More recently, Iran has been a regular adversary in cyberspace—and while it hasn’t demonstrated quite the acuity of Russia or China, Iran is “good at finding ways to maximize the impact of their capabilities,” says Jeff Greene, the former executive assistant director of cybersecurity at CISA. Iran, in particular, famously was responsible for a series of distributed-denial-of-service attacks on Wall Street institutions that worried financial markets, and its 2012 attack on Saudi Aramco and Qatar’s Rasgas marked some of the earliest destructive infrastructure cyberattacks.

Today, surely, Iran is weighing which of these tools, networks, and operatives it might press into a response—and where, exactly, that response might come. Given its history of terror campaigns and cyberattacks, there’s no reason to think that Iran’s retaliatory options are limited to missiles alone—or even to the Middle East at all.

Which leads to the biggest known unknown of all:

5. How does this end? There’s an apocryphal story about a 1970s conversation between Henry Kissinger and a Chinese leader—it’s told variously as either Mao-Tse Tung or Zhou Enlai. Asked about the legacy of the French revolution, the Chinese leader quipped, “Too soon to tell.” The story almost surely didn’t happen, but it’s useful in speaking to a larger truth particularly in societies as old as the 2,500-year-old Persian empire: History has a long tail.

As much as Trump (and the world) might hope that democracy breaks out in Iran this spring, the CIA’s official assessment in February was that if Khamenei was killed, he would be likely replaced with hardline figures from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And indeed, the fact that Iran’s retaliatory strikes against other targets in the Middle East continued throughout Saturday, even after the death of many senior regime officials—including, purportedly, the defense minister—belied the hope that the government was close to collapse.

The post-World War II history of Iran has surely hinged on three moments and its intersections with American foreign policy—the 1953 CIA coup, the 1979 revolution that removed the shah, and now the 2026 US attacks that have killed its supreme leader. In his recent bestselling book King of Kings, on the fall of the shah, longtime foreign correspondent Scott Anderson writes of 1979, “If one were to make a list of that small handful of revolutions that spurred change on a truly global scale in the modern era, that caused a paradigm shift in the way the world works, to the American, French, and Russian Revolutions might be added the Iranian.”

It is hard not to think today that we are living through a moment equally important in ways that we cannot yet fathom or imagine—and that we should be especially wary of any premature celebration or declarations of success given just how far-reaching Iran’s past turmoils have been.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly bragged about how he sees the military and Trump administration’s foreign policy as sending a message to America’s adversaries: “F-A-F-O,” playing off the vulgar colloquialism. Now, though, it’s the US doing the “F-A” portion in the skies over Iran—and the long arc of Iran’s history tells us that we’re a long, long way from the “F-O” part where we understand the consequences.


Let us know what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor at mail@wired.com.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

This Backyard Smoker Delivers Results Even a Pitmaster Would Approve Of

Published

on

This Backyard Smoker Delivers Results Even a Pitmaster Would Approve Of


While my love of smoked meats is well-documented, my own journey into actually tending the fire started just last spring when I jumped at the opportunity to review the Traeger Woodridge Pro. When Recteq came calling with a similar offer to check out the Flagship 1600, I figured it would be a good way to stay warm all winter.

While the two smokers have a lot in common, the Recteq definitely feels like an upgrade from the Traeger I’ve been using. Not only does it have nearly twice the cooking space, but the huge pellet hopper, rounded barrel, and proper smokestack help me feel like a real pitmaster.

The trade-off is losing some of the usability features that make the Woodridge Pro a great first smoker. The setup isn’t as quite as simple, and the larger footprint and less ergonomic conditions require a little more experience or patience. With both options, excellent smoked meat is just a few button presses away, but speaking as someone with both in their backyard, I’ve been firing up the Recteq more often.

Getting Settled

Photograph: Brad Bourque

Setting up the Recteq wasn’t as time-consuming as the Woodridge, but it was more difficult to manage on my own. Some of the steps, like attaching the bull horns to the lid, or flipping the barrel onto its stand, would really benefit from a patient friend or loved one. Like most smokers, you’ll need to run a burn-in cycle at 400 degrees Fahrenheit to make sure there’s nothing left over from manufacturing or shipping. Given the amount of setup time and need to cool down the smoker after, I would recommend setting this up Friday afternoon if you want to smoke on a Saturday.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Make the Most of Chrome’s Toolbar by Customizing It to Your Liking

Published

on

Make the Most of Chrome’s Toolbar by Customizing It to Your Liking


The main job of Google Chrome is to give you a window to the web. With so much engaging content out there on the internet, you may not have given much thought to the browser framework that serves as the container for the sites you visit.

You’d be forgiven for still using the default toolbar configuration that was in place when you first installed Chrome. But if you take a few minutes to customize it, it can make a significant difference to your browsing. You can get quicker access to the key features you need, and you may even discover features you didn’t know about.

If you’re reading this in Chrome on the desktop, you can experiment with a few customizations right now—all it takes is a few clicks. Here’s how the toolbar in Chrome is put together, and all the different changes you can make.

The Default Layout

Extensions are always easily accessible in Chrome.

Photograph: David Nield

Take a look up at the top right corner of your Chrome browser tab and you’ll see two key buttons: One reveals your browser extensions (the jigsaw piece), and the other opens up your bookmarks (the double-star icon). There should also be a button showing a downward arrow, which gives you access to recently downloaded files.

Right away, you can start customizing. If you click the jigsaw piece icon to show your browser extensions, you can also click the pin button next to any one of these extensions to make it permanently visible on the toolbar. While you don’t want your toolbar to become too cluttered, it means you can put your most-used add-ons within easy reach.

For the extension icons you choose to have on the toolbar, you can choose the way they’re arranged, too: Click and drag on any of the icons to change its position (though the extensions panel itself has to stay in the same place). To remove an extension icon (without uninstalling the extension), right-click on it and choose Unpin.

Making Changes

Image may contain Text and Page

The revamped toolbar customization pane.

Photograph: David Nield

Click the three dots up in the top right corner of any browser window and then Settings > Appearance > Customize your toolbar to get to the main toolbar customization panel, which has recently been revamped. Straight away you’ll see toggle switches that let you show or hide certain buttons on the toolbar.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending