“The data is then stored and shared proportionately with other vendors creating a larger watch list where they all benefit,” a spokesperson for Facewatch says . Its website states that it is “the shared national face recognition watchlist ONLY” and the watch list works by connecting several private face recognition networks. He says he has started testing with another division of the Co-op since the Southern Co-op trial.
Facewatch refuses to say who the messengers are, citing secret reasons, but its website includes case studies from petrol stations and other UK shops. Last year, the Financial Times report that Humber prison is using its technology, as well as police and salesmen in Brazil. Facewatch said its technology was to be used in 550 stores across London. This can mean that large numbers of people have their faces scanned. In Brazil in December 2018, 2.75 million faces were captured by the tech with the company’s founders telling the FT that it would reduce crime “by a total of 70 percent. ”(The report also stated that one Co-op food store around London’s Victoria station was using the tech.)
However, advocates and civil liberties regulators are cautious about expanding private face recognition networks, with concerns about governance and proportionality.
“As soon as a person walks into the Co-op store, they are subjected to face recognition scans … which can prevent people from entering the stores at the time of an outbreak -secretable, ”says Edin Omanovic, director of advocacy who has been targeting face recognition at NGO Privacy International. The agency has written to Co-op, regulators and law enforcement regarding the use of the tech. Beyond this, his colleague Ioannis Kouvakas says the use of Facewatch technology raises legal concerns. “It is unnecessary and inconsistent,” says Kouvakas, legal officer at Privacy International.
Facewatch and Co-op both rely on their legitimate business interests under GDPR and data protection laws for scanning people’s faces. They say the use of face recognition technology allows them to reduce the impact of crime and improve employee safety.
“You still have to be necessary and proportionate. Using highly intrusive technology to scan people’s faces without being 100 per cent aware of the consequences and without the option of giving clear, freely informed, unambiguous consent, it’s an opportunity ”said Kouvakas.
This is not the first time Facewatch technology has been questioned. Other legal experts have questioned whether there is significant public interest in using the face recognition technology. The UK data protection regulator, the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO), says companies need clear evidence that there is a legal basis for using these systems.
“Public support for the police who use face recognition to catch criminals is high, but less so when it comes to the private sector operating the technology in a semi-legal capacity,” a spokesman for the police said. ICO says. The ICO is investigating the use of live face recognition in the private sector and plans to report its findings early next year.
“The audit involves assessing the compliance of a range of private companies that have, or are currently using, face recognition technology,” an ICO spokesman said. “Facewatch is one of the groups being considered. ”
Part of the ICO’s study on the use of face recognition in the private sector involves where police forces are involved. There is growing concern about how police officers and lawyers could gain access to images captured by private surveillance systems.
In the U.S., Amazon Ring smart doorbells, which include motion tracking and face recognition, have been set up to provide data to the police in some cases. And London Met Police had to apologize after they provided images of seven to a controversial private face recognition system at Kings Cross in October 2019.