‘Innocent people like victims and potential witnesses could be placed on police watchlists under guidance on the use of facial recognition systems, civil liberties groups have warned.’
The Independent, 22nd March 2022
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘An Australian firm which claims to have a database of more than 10 billion facial images is facing a potential £17m fine over its handling of personal data in the UK.’
BBC news, 29th November 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Uber is facing legal action following revelations that its facial recognition algorithm is five times more likely to cause the termination of darker-skinned workers.’
Each Other, 11th October 2021
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘Uber is facing further claims for compensation over racial discrimination from drivers who say they had been falsely dismissed because of malfunctioning face recognition technology.’
The Guardian, 6th October 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Liberty, Privacy International and 29 other organisations have called for Parliament to ban the use of live facial recognition technology (LFRT) by the police and private companies.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st August 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A proposed code of practice covering police use of live facial recognition in England and Wales has been criticised by human rights groups.’
BBC News 17th August 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published today (17 June) found that out of a group of organisations using live facial recognition (LFR) technology in public spaces, none were fully compliant with data protection law requirements.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th June 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In R(Bridges) v South Wales Police, the England and Wales Court of Appeal reviewed the lawfulness of the use of live automated facial recognition technology (‘AFR’) by the South Wales Police Force. CCTV cameras capture images of the public, which are then compared with digital images of persons on a watchlist.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd September 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD and Singh LJ) allowed the appeal of the civil liberties campaigner, Edward Bridges, against the decision of the Divisional Court which had dismissed his claim for judicial review of South Wales Police Force’s use of live automated facial recognition technology (“AFR”).’
39 Essex Chambers, 17th August 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (handed down on 11 August 2020) was an appeal from what is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Court of Appeal in Bridges, this system constitutes an interference with Article 8 rights which is not such as is in accordance with the law, but which (critically) would be proportionate if a sufficiently narrow local policy were framed.’
UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Campaigners are calling for South Wales police and other forces to stop using facial recognition technology after the court of appeal ruled that its use breached privacy rights and broke equalities law.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Video manipulation software, including ‘deepfake’ technology, poses problems for remote courts in verifying evidence and that litigants or witnesses are who they say they are, a report has warned.’
Legal Futures, 29th July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Automated facial recognition technology that searches for people in public places breaches privacy rights and will “radically” alter the way Britain is policed, the court of appeal has been told.’
The Guardian, 23rd June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has called for the suspension of the use of automated facial recognition (AFR) and predictive algorithms in policing in England and Wales, “until their impact has been independently scrutinised and laws are improved”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin); [2020] 1 WLR 672 is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Divisional Court in Bridges, this may, depending on the facts of each particular deployment, be lawful.’
UK Police Law Blog, 21st February 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘National guidance is urgently needed to oversee the police’s use of data-driven technology amid concerns that it could lead to discrimination, a report has said.’
The Guardian, 23rd February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The official biometrics commissioner has rebuked the Metropolitan police after it falsely claimed that he supported its use of facial recognition CCTV in an equalities impact assessment published as the force made its first operational use of the controversial technology.’
The Guardian, 12th February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Metropolitan police have been accused of defying the warnings of its own watchdogs by beginning operational use of facial recognition CCTV, despite a scathing assessment of its effectiveness from the expert hired to scrutinise its trials.’
The Guardian, 11th February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025