United Kingdom: even devoid of a legal framework, facial recognition is generalized in traders

< IMG Loading = "Lazy" SRSC = "/Sites/Default/Files/Styles/Medium/2025-02/Allison-Saeng-Unsplash.jpg ? Itok = KGYTY1UN" Width = "1300" Height = "731" Alt = "facial recognition" class = "Lazyload IMG-Fluid Image-Style-Max-1300x1300" SRC = "/Sites/Default/Files/Styles/Max_1300x1300/Public/2025-02/Allison-Saeng-Unsplash. JPG ? Itok = RLCV9YFP " /> Unsplash < P >If they particularly understand the use of facial recognition by the authorities, the British, particularly those who are hostile to this technology, find themselves in an unexpected situation. Facial recognition is mainly generalized in the private sector, particularly in shops, in a country where the legal regulation of this activity remains to be consolidated, or even to set up. A particular company, Facewatch, dominates this market and distributes its solutions to both traders and London authorities. NGOs reiterate their concerns, both for data collection and for potential errors in facial recognition, the history of which continues to accumulate. & Amp; nbsp;

< P > “Before Facewatch, we had flights two or three times a day, sometimes more. They were often the same people. Now we are two or three flights per week, reports the owner of the store. We receive alerts from Facewatch when thieves have already been spotted try to enter our store, ”says a London merchant at RFI. & Amp; nbsp;

< P >Founded in 2010, the company, founded by a certain Simon Gordon, allowed its users in the United Kingdom to file reports in the police automatically after being witnesses of a crime. Users received “immediately a reference number for crime” in order to be able to “follow the details of their online affair”. It was not until 2020, when facial recognition was widespread in the British capital on the pretext of covid-19 pandemic, that Facewatch announced that he had managed to develop facial recognition technology capable of identifying individuals bearing masks. & nbsp;

< P > However, the legal framework for this activity, prohibited in Europe, was lacking. A bill had been tabled in February 2020 by a senator to ban this technology in public places, but the text is still today, in second reading. His proposal concerned public use, however, giving full freedom to the private sector. & Amp; nbsp; nbsp;

< p > The merchants are required to specify to their customers that Facial recognition cameras are installed but according to NGOs like Statewatch, they do not all respect this obligation. & nbsp; & nbsp;

< P > The BBC already reported at this period the testimony of a resident accused by the display flight company, now asked to leave the stores with facewatch facial recognition cameras, which admitted having made an error and whose solutions are deemed “in accordance with legislation British on data protection ”by Commissioner's Office Information (ICO), the British data protection authority. < Strong > & nbsp;

< P > In addition to the generalization of this technology to individuals, whose installations could be little controlled, the proximity of the company with the authorities raises other apprehensions. & nbsp; & nbsp;

< P >The BBC reported that in total, more than 192 arrests in Grand London took place in early 2024. But people, wrongly identified by technology as individuals “sought after by the police”, testified to their misadventure, judging the “very intrusive” system. Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, had attended the arrest of a victim. “If a corresponding alert is triggered, then the police will intervene, can potentially hold them, question them and ask them to prove their innocence”. & Amp; nbsp; nbsp;

< P > In addition to the errors, which the London police claims to be “rare”, this use of facial recognition, including that based on AI, also raises questions related to mass monitoring using data biometrics collected in public spaces.