Connect with us

Tech

London Assembly member: Police should halt facial-recognition technology use | Computer Weekly

Published

on

London Assembly member: Police should halt facial-recognition technology use | Computer Weekly


The Metropolitan Police’s rapid “unchecked” expansion of live facial-recognition (LFR) technology is taking place without clear legal authority and minimal public accountability, says Green London Assembly member Zoë Garbett in a call for the force to halt its deployments of the controversial technology.

Made during an ongoing government consultation on a legal framework for the technology, Garbett’s call for the force to immediately halt its deployments of LFR is informed by concerns around its disproportionate effects on Black and brown communities, a lack of specific legal powers dictating how police can use the tech, and the Met’s opacity around the true costs of deploying.

Garbett’s intervention also comes as the High Court is considering the lawfulness of the Met’s approach to LFR, and whether it has effective safeguards or constraints in place to protect people’s human rights from the biometric surveillance being conducted.

“Live facial-recognition technology subjects everyone to constant surveillance, which goes against the democratic principle that people should not be monitored unless there is suspicion of wrongdoing,” said Garbett, adding that there have already been instances of “real harm” in children being wrongly placed on watchlists, and the disproportionate targeting and misidentification of Black Londoners.

“These invasive tools allow the police to monitor the daily lives of Londoners, entirely unregulated and without any safeguards. The Met repeatedly claim that live facial recognition is a success, yet they continue to withhold the data required to scrutinise those claims.

“It makes no sense for the home secretary to announce the expansion of live facial recognition at the same time as running a government consultation on the use of this technology. This expansion is especially concerning given that there is still no specific law authorising the use of this technology.”

Highlighting in a corresponding report how facial-recognition technology “flips the presumption of innocence” by turning public spaces into an “identification parade”, Garbett also outlined ways in which both the Met and the Home Office can make its use safer in lieu of a full-blown ban.

This includes creating primary legislation with “strict controls” that limits LFR to the most serious crimes and bans its use by non-law enforcement public authorities or the private sector; and openly publishing deployment assessments so that watchlist creation, location choice and tactical decisions are publicly available for Londoners to review.

On watchlist creation specifically, Garbett dismissed the police claim that LFR is a “precise” tool, highlighting how nearly every watchlist used is larger than the one preceding it.

Highlighting how the number of faces being scanned by the Met is “increasing at a near exponential rate”, Garbett likened the forces watchlist tactics to a “fishing trawler” that it keeps adding to so it can find people.

“Data suggests that rather than making a new unique watchlist for each deployment based on the likelihood of people being in the area of the deployment, it seems from the outside that the MPS is just adding additional people on to a base watchlist [it has],” she said.

Garbett also called on the Met to publish the true financial and operational costs of all LFR deployments, arguing that the force has not only failed to provide a compelling business case for the technology, but is actively obfuscating this information.

“The MPS has a history of a lack of transparency. This is perhaps best summarised by Baroness Casey in her review of the MPS where she said, ‘The Met itself sees scrutiny as an intrusion. This is both short-sighted and unethical. As a public body with powers over the public it needs to be transparent to Londoners for its actions to earn their trust, confidence and respect’,” said Garbett.

She added that while freedom of information requests returned in mid-2023 revealed that, up until that point, the force had spent £500,000 on the tech, without up-to-date reliable figures, it is impossible to verify the Met’s claims that it is delivering a greater impact on public safety through LFR.

“The NHS wouldn’t be able to roll out a new treatment without being able to prove it was worthwhile and effective, but it seems that the police operate under their own rules and seemingly answer to no one,” said Garbett.

Computer Weekly contacted the Met about Garbett’s report. A spokesperson said that LFR “has taken more than 1,700 dangerous offenders off the streets since the start of 2024, including those wanted for serious offences, such as violence against women and girls. This success has meant 85% Londoners support our use of the technology to keep them safe.

“It has been deployed across all 32 boroughs in London, with each use carefully planned to ensure we are deploying to areas where there is the greatest threat to public safety. A hearing into our use of live facial recognition has taken place and we look forward to receiving the High Court’s decision in due course. We remain confident our use of LFR is lawful and follows the policy which is published online.”

A lack of meaningful consultation so far

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 lack of meaningful engagement with the public by police and government over facial recognition is reflected in Garbett’s report. She highlights, for examples, that Newham Council unanimously passed a motion in January 2023 to suspend the use of LFR throughout the borough until biometric and anti-discrimination safeguards are in place.

While the motion highlighted the potential of LFR to “exacerbate racist outcomes in policing” – particularly 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.

“Since that motion was passed, LFR has been used 31 times in Newham by the MPS,” said Garbett.

On the deployment of permanent LFR cameras mounted to street furniture in Croydon, Garbett added while the Met promised it would consult with the local community, councillors from there are have told her the force did not follow through with this consultation.

The technology was similarly rolled out in Lewisham without meaningful consultation, despite the Met’s claims to the contrary.

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.

Consultation responses

In a section on how people can respond to the Home Office’s LFR consultation, Garbett urged people to call for its ban, adding that further protections in lieu one could include requiring a warrant to be placed on a watchlist, and limiting it to “the most serious and urgent crime purposes”.

She noted that, as it stands, the Met has not used LFR to make any terror-related arrests, with the most common offence being variations on theft or court order breaches

“In a recent press release, the lead example the MPS give for how they have used LFR is using it to arrest a 36-year-old woman who was wanted for failing to appear at court for an assault in 2004 when they were probably 15 years old,” she said. “The public might feel differently about LFR if they knew it was being used on cases such as these.”

On the permanent installation of LFR cameras in Croydon, Garbett added that while the police have said they are only switched on when an operation is taking place, “there is still the potential for 24/7 monitoring, with Londoners unable to tell if the cameras are operational or not. This makes the feeling of being under surveillance in London feel routine and begins to be a slippery slope to preventative policing and a blurry line between safety and social control.”  

Garbett concluded that the rapid deployment of LFR must stop while safeguards are in place to protect people’s rights: “I urge everyone to respond to the government consultation and use the guide I’ve prepared to make sure we have a say in how this technology is used going forward.”

Computer Weekly contacted the Home Office about the contents of Garbett’s report and its decision to massively expand facial-recognition deployments before concluding its consultation, but received no response.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Tech

I Tested Garmin Watches for a Decade While Hiking, Biking, and Climbing. Here’s What You Should Buy

Published

on

I Tested Garmin Watches for a Decade While Hiking, Biking, and Climbing. Here’s What You Should Buy


Last year, Garmin introduced a Pro version that incorporates the inReach’s satellite communications savvy. Not only does it cost at least $400 more than the Apple Watch Ultra and $200 more than the regular Fenix 8, but you also have to pay for the inReach subscription plan, which has several tiers and ranges from $8/month to $50/month depending on whether you want features like unlimited texting or sending photo messages.

What you get for this mind-boggling price is a sports watch that can do anything and everything. It has best-in-class battery life (every Fenix can last for weeks on a single charge, and up to a month with solar charging) and features like the depth sensor from Garmin’s Descent line, which means this watch works as a full-on dive computer for scuba and free diving. It has a microphone and speaker for basic voice commands (although no onboard cellular connectivity), the surprisingly useful built-in LED flashlight, and Garmin’s signature built-in topographic maps, 24/7 health monitoring, and tracking for over a hundred different activities.

I’ve taken the 51-mm version on pretty much every outdoor sport—snowboarding, trail running, mountain biking, and rock climbing. Every time I use it, its capabilities far outclass my own. I have irritated many a fellow climber by attempting to track route difficulty, duration, and falls while integrating my Body Battery metrics and so on. The danger is always that you’ll spend more time fiddling with your Garmin Fenix 8 than you do with your actual sport. I have the version with the sapphire glass face and the titanium bezel, and have smashed it into rock faces with nary a scratch. If you’re up for paying the price and want a good-looking watch that will last forever (I have friends who are still wearing their Fenix 5s and 6s, and honestly, they’re fine), this is the one to get.

Best Running Watch

The Garmin Forerunner series launched in the early 2000s and has become the quintessential runner’s watch. Like all Garmins, the Forerunner comes in a range of price points, each offering different features. Last year, Garmin released the Forerunner 570 ($550), a midrange model with no LED flashlight or onboard maps, and the Forerunner 970 ($750), which is the premium version. Before I go into detail about why the Forerunner 970 is the best option, I should also say that I have tested many previous Garmin Forerunners at various price points. If you’re not a triathlete, the older Forerunners are still worth considering, and the entry-level $200 Forerunner 165 is aimed explicitly at runners, instead of including triathletes as the more expensive models do.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Save Up to 40% With These Acer Promo Codes and Discounts

Published

on

Save Up to 40% With These Acer Promo Codes and Discounts


Acer is one of the top largest PC manufacturers in the world, perhaps best known for its gaming line and budget-friendly options. If you’ve already got your eye on an Acer product like a laptop or monitor, and are shopping at the company’s online storefront, you should be using one of these Acer promo codes and coupons to save some cash on your purchase.

Save 40% on Accessories When You Build an Acer Bundle

If you’re buying from Acer, you’re most likely shopping for either a desktop PC or laptop. With this discount, you can get a really solid deal on accessories if you bundle it with a mouse, laptop bag, or headset. When you go to purchase a PC, just click “Build Bundle” and you’ll see some of the eligible options, all of which are reduced by 40%. The Nitro Mechanical Keyboard, for example, goes from $50 to just $30. That 40% is a real discount, too, as that same keyboard costs $50 on Amazon when I checked.

Beyond peripheral add-ons, you can also save 10% off Acer Care Plus extended service plans or McAfee LiveSafe antivirus subscriptions. You can bundle up to five products together to save the most money. If you’re headed off to college (or have a kid in the family), a bundle like this can get you everything you need for a gaming or studying setup on the go.

Shop Rotating Weekly Deals on Monitors and Gaming Gear

Acer’s PC gaming offerings come in either the flagship Predator brand or the budget-tier Nitro. Acer offers rotating weekly deals on everything from monitors to gaming laptops, some of which are my favorites that I’ve tested in their given category. The Acer Nitro V 16, for example, was a budget gaming laptop that I recommended quite a lot last year because of its incredible price. The one I tested was the entry-level version with an Nvidia RTX 5050 inside, but Acer has the RTX 5060 model in its own storefront. It’s $100 off right now at $1,200, which comes with 16 GB of RAM and a terabyte of storage. In fact, it’s only $30 more than the RTX 5050 model, despite offering a significant jump in gaming performance. These discounts are reflected right on the product pages, so there’s no promo code, discount code, or coupon code required.

Acer has a wide selection of monitors available, too, whether that’s a massive 49-incher or a more modest 27-inch gaming workhorse. One of my favorite discounts I saw right now was the Acer Nitro XV2, a 27-inch 1440p display with a 300 Hz refresh rate. It’s 44% off at the time of writing, bringing the price down to just $250. Because these discounts are swapped out on a weekly basis, it’s worth checking back to see if the product you’re eyeing has a new discount.

Select Customers Can Get 15% Off Their Purchase

Acer also offers a number of added discounts at checkout, including 15% off for students. Students will need to verify through Student Beans or SheerID. Because a lot of the devices Acer offers are budget-friendly, they can be attractive for students, and the extra 15% off is the icing on the cake.

We tested the Acer Swift 16 AI last year and really enjoyed the high-resolution, OLED screen and impressively quiet performance. Acer has the smaller version of this same laptop available, the Swift 14 AI, which is currently $150 off. You also might check out the Acer Chromebook Plus 514, a laptop we liked quite a bit when we reviewed it in 2024.

Acer offers this same 15% discount for active duty military, veterans, and their families. It also applies to healthcare professionals, which can be verified through its healthcare discount portal.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

AI Research Is Getting Harder to Separate From Geopolitics

Published

on

AI Research Is Getting Harder to Separate From Geopolitics


The world’s top AI research conference, the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems—better known as NeurIPS—became the latest organization this week to become embroiled in a growing clash between geopolitics and global scientific collaboration. The conference’s organizers announced and then quickly reversed controversial new restrictions for international participants after Chinese AI researchers threatened to boycott the event.

“This is a potential watershed moment,” says Paul Triolo, a partner at the advisory firm DGA-Albright Stonebridge who studies US-China relations. Triolo argues that attracting Chinese researchers to NeurIPS is beneficial to US interests, but some American officials have pushed for American and Chinese scientists to decouple their work—especially in AI, which has become a particularly sensitive topic in Washington.

The incident could deepen political tensions around AI research, as well as dissuade Chinese scientists from working at US universities and tech companies in the future. “At some level now it is going to be hard to keep basic AI research out of the [political] picture,” Triolo says.

In its annual handbook for paper submissions, issued in mid-March, NeurIPS organizers announced updated restrictions for participation. The rules stated that the event could not provide services including “peer review, editing, and publishing” to any organizations subject to US sanctions, and linked to a database of sanctioned entities. It included companies and organizations on the Bureau of Industry and Security’s entity list and those on another list with alleged ties to the Chinese military.

The new rules would have affected researchers at Chinese companies like Tencent and Huawei who regularly present work at NeurIPS. The database also includes entities from other countries such as Russia and Iran. The US places limits on doing business with these organizations, but there are no rules around academic publishing or conference participation.

The NeurIPS handbook has since been updated to specify that the restrictions apply only to Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, a list used primarily for terrorist groups and criminal organizations.

“In preparing the NeurIPS 2026 handbook, we included a link to a US government sanctions tool that covers a significantly broader set of restrictions than those NeurIPS is actually required to follow,” the event’s organizers said in a statement issued Friday. “This error was due to miscommunication between the NeurIPS Foundation and our legal team.”

Before they reversed course, the conference organizers initially said that the new rule was “about legal requirements that apply to the NeurIPS Foundation, which is responsible for complying with sanctions,” adding that it was seeking legal consultation on the issue.

Immediate Backlash

The new rule drew swift backlash from AI researchers around the world, particularly in China, which produces a large quantity of cutting-edge machine learning papers and is home to a growing share of the world’s top AI talent. Several academic groups there issued statements condemning the measure and, more importantly, discouraging Chinese academics from attending NeurIPS in the future. Some urged Chinese academics to contribute instead to domestic research conferences, potentially helping increase the country’s influence in relevant science and tech fields.

The China Association of Science and Technology (CAST), an influential government-affiliated organization for scientists and engineers, said Thursday that it would stop providing funding for Chinese scholars traveling to attend NeurIPS and would use the money instead to support domestic and international conferences that “respect the rights of Chinese scholars.”

CAST also said it will no longer count publications at the 2026 NeurIPS conference as academic achievements when evaluating future research funding. It’s unclear if the organization will reverse course now that NeurIPS has walked back the new rule.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending