Tech
Landmark legal challenge against police facial recognition begins | Computer Weekly
A judicial review against the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition (LFR) will argue the force is unlawfully deploying the technology across London, without effective safeguards or constraints in place to protect people’s human rights from invasive biometric surveillance.
Brought by anti-knife campaigner Shaun Thompson, who was wrongfully identified by the Met’s system and subject to a prolonged stop as a result, and privacy group Big Brother Watch, the challenge will argue there are no meaningful safeguards in place to effectively limit how the Met uses the technology.
In particular, it will argue the Met’s policy on where it can be deployed and who it can be used to target is so permissive and leaves so much discretion to the force that it cannot be considered “in accordance with law”.
“The reason for the ‘who’ requirement is clear,” wrote Thompson and Big Brother Watch in their skeleton argument for the case. “It serves to protect against people being selected for a watchlist for reasons that are arbitrary, discriminatory or without sufficient basis. As to the ‘where’ requirement, the concern is not with the individuals on the watchlist, but the thousands of innocent people who will have their biometric data taken while going about lawful quotidian activities.”
They added that, as with the “who”, similarly constraining officers’ discretion as to “where” LFR can be used inhibits officers from selecting locations for reasons that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or otherwise have an insufficient basis.
“That is a safeguard against individual officers selecting areas arbitrarily or improperly targeting areas where people of certain races or religions disproportionately live or consistently targeting deprived communities in London,” they wrote, adding that if there are insufficient constraints on “where” LFR can be used, it will be impossible for people to travel across London without their biometric data being captured and processed.
“Any public place risks becoming one in which people’s identities are liable to be checked to see if they are of interest to the police,” they continued. “That would be to fundamentally transform public spaces and people’s relationship with the police.”
Rights breaches
Ultimately, Thompson and Big Brother Watch will argue that the Met’s LFR use breaches the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly.
This marks the first legal challenge in Europe brought by someone misidentified by facial recognition technology.
After Thompson was wrongly flagged by the technology when travelling through London Bridge, officers detained him while they asked for identity documents, repeatedly demanded fingerprint scans, and inspected him for scars and tattoos.
The police stop continued for over 20 minutes, during which time Thompson was threatened with arrest, despite providing multiple identity documents showing he had been falsely identified.
Thompson, a 39-year-old Black man, described the police’s use of LFR at the time as “stop and search on steroids”.
In August 2020, the Court of Appeal previously found that South Wales Police (SWP) had been deploying LFR unlawfully, on the grounds there were insufficient constraints on the force’s discretion over where LFR could be used, and who could be placed on a watchlist.
“The possibility of being subjected to a digital identity check by police without our consent almost anywhere, at any time, is a serious infringement on our civil liberties that is transforming London,” said Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo ahead of the case being heard.
“When used as a mass surveillance tool, live facial recognition reverses the presumption of innocence and destroys any notion of privacy in our capital. This legal challenge is a landmark step towards protecting the public against intrusive monitoring.”
Legal arguments
On where police can deploy LFR, the Met’s policy documents state the force can deploy LFR cameras at “crime hotspots”, including “access routes” to those hotspots; for “protective security operations”, meaning at public events or critical national infrastructure; and locations based on officers’ intelligence about “the likely location [of] … sought persons”.
However, according to their skeleton argument, Thompson and Big Brother Watch will say the policy does “not meaningfully constrain the discretion as to where LFR can be located”.
It added that while these use cases are intended to circumscribe where the tech can be used, a third-party analysis conducted by Martin Utley – a professor of operational research at University College London – suggests that, in practice, “they confer far too broad a discretion on individual officers, and permit them to deploy LFR anywhere they choose in the significant majority, if not the vast majority, of public spaces in the Metropolitan Police District at any time”.
The argument also added that while the Met’s LFR policy permits officers to designate areas as “crime hotspots” based on “operational experience as to future criminality”, this is “opaque and entirely subjective”.
Utley specifically found that an estimated 47% of the Met’s policing district is labelled as a “crime hotspot”, and that LFR could be deployed on access routes that cover a further 38%, rendering 85% of London open to LFR deployments.
A separate analysis conducted by the Met found that LFR can be located in around 40% of the Metropolitan Police District, compared with Utley’s 47%.
Highlighting how SWP’s use of the tech was found unlawful due to the broad discretion conferred to officers in that case, the argument claims that, taken all together, the Met’s deployment use cases mean that “most of the city is covered”.
“There are two ways LFR can be deployed,” it said. “It can be used in a targeted way. For example, if the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that particular individuals were going to engage in violence at a football game, they could be placed on a watchlist and LFR used to detect their presence in the vicinity.
“Or LFR can be deployed in a mass and untargeted way, selecting areas where a very large number of people are likely to pass and using a very large watchlist, in the hope that someone on the list will happen to pass by.
“It was precisely such mass and untargeted use that concerned the CA [Court of Appeal] in Bridges [the case against SWP], which discretion it considered had to be constrained.”
Unlike the case against SWP’s LFR use, however, which sought to determine the proportionality of the interferences with a specific person’s individual rights on the two occasions his biometric information was captured by the system, the judicial review seeks to challenge the lawfulness of the technology’s mass use.
“For the purpose of the IAWL [in accordance with law] requirement it is critical if there is mass use of LFR to repeatedly process the biometric data of millions of people with the capacity to transform public spaces,” it said. “When considering what is required in terms of constraints and safeguards to ensure a measure is IAWL, the Court must consider, among other things, the number of people a measure affects, and not a single individual’s rights.”
The Met, on the other hand, will argue that the public are “generally at liberty to avoid the relevant LFR area”, and that as individuals’ “familiarity” with LFR increases, it can be considered less rights-intrusive.
The force will also argue that, because officers’ discretion around LFR deployments is not unconstrained, the case is not an IAWL issue, asserting that “so long as the Court is satisfied there is not unfettered discretion on the constable deciding where to locate LFR, [there] is not a maintainable legality challenge.”
The Met added that because “there are no parts of the Policy that allow unfettered discretion for an officer to add whomever he or she wants to a watchlist or place the LFR camera wherever he or she wishes … there is no maintainable attack on the Policy as lacking the quality of law”.
In essence, the Met claims that questions about the breadth of officers’ discretion relate only to the proportionality of its approach, rather than its overall lawfulness.
Lack of primary legislation
The landmark legal challenge against LFR is being heard just a matter of weeks after the UK government pledged to “ramp up” the police use of facial recognition and biometrics.
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.
However, in December 2025, the Home Office launched a 10-week consultation on the use of LFR by UK police, allowing interested parties and members of the public to share their views on how the controversial technology should be regulated.
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”.
It 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.
There have also been repeated calls from both Parliament and civil society over many years for the police’s use of facial recognition to be regulated.
This includes three separate inquiries by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee into shoplifting, police algorithms and police facial recognition; two of the UK’s former biometrics commissioners, Paul Wiles and Fraser Sampson; an independent legal review by Matthew Ryder QC; the UK’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission; and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which called for a moratorium on live facial recognition as far back as July 2019.
More recently, the Ada Lovelace Institute published a report in May 2025 that said the UK’s patchwork approach to regulating biometric surveillance technologies is “inadequate”, placing fundamental rights at risk and ultimately undermining public trust.
In August 2025, after being granted permission to intervene in the judicial review of the Met’s LFR use, the UK’s equality watchdog said the force is using the technology unlawfully, citing the need for its deployments to be necessary, proportionate and respectful of human rights.
Tech
This Solar-Powered Smart Sprinkler Keeps My Lawn Watered Without Any Power Cables
Once configured, setup proceeds much like the Aiper and pricier Irrigreen apps: You create a zone, then use the app to define its boundaries. Similar to the aforementioned systems, Oto’s sprinkler is designed for precision watering, firing water in a beam in a single direction instead of a wide spray. That said, Oto’s spray is comparably narrow, only hitting a single, designated patch instead of producing a two-dimensional curtain of water like Irrigreen’s “water printing” system. You get a nice preview of this as you set the boundaries of your yard.
Like its competitors, Oto lets you set each zone as a spot (for watering a single tree, perhaps), a line (for a flowerbed), or a 2-D area (for a yard). I tested all of these modes but spent most of my time working with area zones, which are the most complex option. When defining an area zone, I found Oto’s system to be virtually identical to that of Irrigreen and Aiper, though ever so slightly slower to respond to commands. Even so, it’s very easy to use: A simple interface lets you drop points around the sprinkler to define the boundaries of the zone. When you’ve made a full circle around the sprinkler, the area is complete.
Once configured, you can assign each zone a schedule, with copious options available around which days to water (odd days, even days, select days of the week, every day), and designate a start time (though there is no tying time to sundown or sunrise). Each schedule also gets a weekly watering limit (in inches of depth), which you’ll then parse out over each week’s watering runs. Weather intelligence features let you elect to skip watering if your zip code receives measurable rainfall or if winds are high (both based on internet reports); the user can tweak both the amount of rain and windspeed needed to trigger a skip. The app logs the 20 most recent runs and includes a calendar that details upcoming events.
When watering an area, Oto takes a novel approach to covering the lawn, first moving in circular arcs directly around the sprinkler, then slowly increasing in range with each successive swipe. When finished, it does additional “clean-up” runs to hit any areas that the initial watering arcs didn’t reach. The speed is slow enough and the size of the water’s beam is large enough that the resulting coverage is solid. After test runs, I found the yard to be plenty wet across the entire zone, with no dry patches.
As with all sprinklers, changes in water pressure can make for occasional over- or underwatering of areas, but I found this to be a minimal problem when using the Oto. However, when watering at the terminus of Oto’s range, the power needed to throw the water that far can make for a strong splashdown, which may result in some soil erosion or damage to more sensitive plants.
The Oto also has a “play mode” option that lets you use the sprinkler for a watery game of chase or a more random “splash tag” mode, aka “try to avoid getting hit by the water.” Pro tip: It’s impossible not to get hit.
Tech
Why Is Your Grill So Dumb? The Best Grills Set Temp Like an Oven
It’s likewise smartly designed, packing up into—as you likely already gleaned—the shape of a suitcase. The heavy-duty handles and latches are strong. Though the Nomad is 28 pounds, which is a bit on the heavy side for a single-hand carry, the shape and large handle actually make it easier to carry than smaller and cheaper models.
The Nomad uses a dual-venting system to achieve good airflow, even when the lid is closed. The vents, combined with the raised fins on the bottom of the grill (which elevate your charcoal, allowing air to flow underneath), allow for very precise control of both high and low temperatures. If you live and die by overlanding, this grill could be your new constant companion.
Photograph: Weber
A Great Budget Portable Grill: WIRED reviewer Scott Gilbertson also loves the simple Weber Jumbo Joe ($90), a smaller version of the classic Original Kettle. It’s an easy choice for tailgates, especially. And if you want to use it at home, you can build yourself a stand for home cookouts. It’s low-cost, light, and dead simple. All are virtues.
Other Grills I Recommend
Recteq X-Fire Pro 825 for $1,400: Pellet smokers rarely crest much over 450 degrees Fahrenheit, which does not offer the sear you’d get on a charcoal or gas grill. But Recteq’s 825-square-inch, dual-pot X-Fire Pro wants to be your everything device, notes WIRED reviewer Kat Merck. In Smoke Mode, the left fire pot ignites for classic low-and-slow smoking. Switch the big knob to Grill Mode, and both pots fire up, with an adjustable damper over the right side. The damper, controllable with another knob, allows you to open access to the right fire pot just a little bit, or all the way to the gates of hell—1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. It takes about 20 minutes for the fire pot to get going this high, and if you don’t clean the fire pot first, it’ll kick off a lot of sparks in the process. Who knows why you need to get to 1,200 degrees? But as Merck notes, this is a company known for a cartoon bull logo and bull-horn handles. “Recteq likes to be extreme, so it tracks,” she says. If you keep your sear to a more human 600 degrees Fahrenheit, it’s a solid grill and sear experience. But keep in mind that the high power draw from the dual igniters will require a 10- or-12-gauge extension cord, which is probably better than the cord you’ve got at home. The X-Fire also didn’t produce the same smokiness as WIRED’s top-pick Recteq Flagship 1600, according to Merck’s testing, which means you’ll end up using smoke tubes at low temperature if you want to get more smoke in the meat. Note, too, that the advertised 20-pound pellet capacity is split between fire pots. This could mean refilling a 10-pound hopper multiple times during a long cook.
Photograph: Brad Bourque
Traeger Woodridge Pro for $1,000: The Traeger Woodridge Pro is WIRED’s previous top-pick pellet grill and smoker for most people. It still exists beautifully at the intersection of value and utility, and is likely to make you popular in the neighborhood. It’s a straightforward beast of a thing that’s easy to clean, easy to dial in for a perfect rack of ribs, and big enough to cook up two pork bellies at the same time. My new top-pick Recteq has a couple smart features that make us prefer it, like temperature history on its meat probes, and an easier learning curve on smart features. But this Woodridge will still make you quite popular in the neighborhood.
Photograph: Traeger
Traeger Timberline Wi-Fi Wood Pellet Grill for $3,300: If you’re serious about grilling and smoking, Traeger’s Timberline is almost a step up from a smoker. It’s the perfect all-in-one outdoor kitchen. It uses the same wireless smoking smarts as the Woodridge but adds some extras, like an induction burner (perfect for adding a last-minute sear with a cast-iron pan or steaming some veggies). The insulated smoke box has room for six pork shoulders, or about the equivalent racks of ribs or chickens. Former WIRED editor Parker Hall has managed to feed hundreds of people using it. (As a longtime food and barbecue critic, I can vouch heartily for Hall’s resulting brisket and ribs.) If that’s not enough, there’s also an XL version that’s even bigger. “All of my meats heated evenly and were perfectly cooked right when the smoker said they would be,” Hall says. If you want flawless smoking from the comfort of your couch and price is not a factor, the Timberline delivers.
Courtesy of Masterbuilt
Masterbuilt Gravity Series 800 for $899: This spacious Masterbuilt offers a nice combination, notes WIRED reviewer Chris Smith: charcoal flavor with the temperature precision of gas or electricity. The large, top-loading charcoal hopper uses gravity (hence the name) to feed heat into an internal housing, and an integrated fan enables precise digital temperature control—on the device or via the app. You’ll reach 700 degrees Fahrenheit within 15 minutes. Temperatures are remarkably consistent once stabilized, and if you want to add smoke flavor, just throw wood chunks into the ash bin and let falling charcoal embers do the rest. But the versatility comes with caveats. You may miss the ability to sear directly over a flame, and you’ll need to change out the internal housing before switching to the flat-top grill.
Courtesy of Yoder
Yoder YS640S Pellet Smoker for $2,700: Most grills do one thing well and several others poorly or not at all. Yoder’s YS640S is a more versatile tool, thanks to a design that allows easy access to the auto-feed firebox. Like Traegers that are half the price, this Kansas-made grill uses an electric fan and an auger to feed wood pellets in for a slow smoke session. It’s all driven by a control board that sends temp alerts and allows you to adjust the temperature via Wi-Fi. As a smoker, it easily handled ribs and a chuck roast, holding the temperature better than most. This is thanks to its bomb-proof 10-gauge steel construction, which means this grill weighs as much as a refrigerator. Where the Yoder really stands out, though, is as a grill and possible pizza oven. By removing a steel plate positioned over the fire pit, you can sear burgers directly over the flame or remove the grills and plop on a hefty pizza oven attachment ($489), which uses the pellet feed system to maintain a constant 900-plus degrees Fahrenheit.
A Grill to Avoid
Courtesy of Ace
Kamado Joe Konnected Joe for $1,900: There’s a lot to like about this kamado-style grill. Indeed, WIRED previously recommended it for its electric ignition and Wi-Fi connectivity that allows you to measure the temperature of the interior and the meat via two probes. But over long-term use, WIRED commerce director Martin Cizmar has had constant problems with the electric grill tripping the 2-year-old GFCI outlets on his patio. Once it even tripped the breaker. A Reddit thread reveals this is a common problem. Like the Redditors, Cizmar found temporary relief by running an extension cord into an outlet in his kitchen, but even that has failed him a few times during testing. Unfortunately, this grill is a hard pass until the issue is resolved.
Tech
The First Atomic Bomb Test in 1945 Created an Entirely New Material
During the Trinity nuclear test on July 16, 1945, in the New Mexico desert—the world’s very first test of an atomic bomb—a new material spontaneously formed. It was discovered only recently, by an international research team coordinated by geologist Luca Bindi at the University of Florence, which identified the novel clathrate based on calcium, copper, and silicon. It’s a material never before observed either in nature or as an artificial compound created in the laboratory.
What Are Clathrates?
The term “clathrates” denotes materials characterized by a “cage-like” structure that traps other atoms and molecules inside, giving them unique properties. Of great technological interest, these materials are being studied for various applications ranging from energy conversion (as thermoelectric materials capable of transforming heat into electricity) to the development of new semiconductors, to gas storage and hydrogen for future energy technologies.
The New Material
To discover the new material, researchers focused on trinitite, a silicate glass containing rare metallic phases. Using some techniques like x-ray diffraction, the team was able to identify a type I clathrate based on calcium, copper, and silicon within a tiny copper-rich metal droplet embedded in a sample of red trinitite.
The new material, the researchers say, formed spontaneously during a nuclear explosion. This indicates that the extreme conditions, such as extremely high temperatures and pressures, can generate new materials that are impossible to obtain by traditional methods.
Natural Laboratories
The discovery is even more interesting because in the same detonation event another very rare material was formed: a silicon-rich quasicrystal, already documented by the team of experts led by Bindi a few years ago.
A quasicrystal, as Bindi told WIRED at the time, is something that is not a crystal, but looks a lot like one. “Their peculiarity,” he said, “is that the atomic arrangement that is not periodic, but nearly so, creates incredible symmetries from which derive amazing physical properties, among other things, very difficult to predict.”
Establishing the link between these structures therefore helps scientists better understand how atoms organize under extreme conditions and expand the possibilities for designing new materials. “Events such as nuclear explosions, lightning strikes, or meteoritic impacts function as true natural laboratories,” the researchers explain. “They allow us to observe forms of matter that we cannot easily reproduce in the laboratory.”
In essence, this research opens new vistas for the development of innovative technologies, demonstrating that even destructive events can bequeath discoveries useful for the future.
This story originally appeared in WIRED Italia and has been translated from Italian.
-
Entertainment5 days agoConan O’Brien hat tricks as Oscar host
-
Tech1 week agoI Tried the Best Captioning Smart Glasses, and Only One Leads the Pack
-
Tech1 week agoCould Contact-Tracing Apps Help With the Hantavirus? Not Really
-
Fashion5 days agoItaly’s Zegna Group’s Q1 growth boosted by strong organic performance
-
Sports1 week agoBobby Cox, legendary Atlanta Braves manager who led 1995 World Series champions, dead at 84
-
Entertainment1 week agoMartin Short: Facing tragedy with joy
-
Entertainment1 week agoTom Brady gets back at Kevin Hart during Netflix roast
-
Entertainment1 week agoMartha Stewart: How to make an omelet


-Reviewer-Photo-SOURCE-Brad-Bourque.jpg)



