Professor Fraser Sampson, the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, applauded the government for not entrusting control of police use of DNA and fingerprints to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), but warned that the task is only half done.
The government said today that proposals to transfer some important tasks of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s post to the powerful ICO data regulator had been cancelled.
Late last year, a significant government consultation titled Data: A New Direction outlined a plan to transfer monitoring of police use of biometrics.
Several respondents, including Professor Sampson, advised the government that it was a terrible idea for a variety of reasons. The OBSCC’s formal response to Data: A New Direction may be found here.
The government indicated today in its formal answer to the consultation (see section 5.8):
The government… has chosen not to transfer these powers to the ICO in light of this input and broader discussion, including with the existing Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner and law enforcement partners…
Professor Sampson expressed his thoughts as follows:
As far as it goes, that’s a sound decision. However, the government’s response must include specifics on what they intend to do with these critical duties now.
I won’t be able to make any significant observations until they provide more details about what will happen next in terms of robust, principled, and independent supervision in these critical areas.
We now have the chance to create something truly remarkable, not just in terms of DNA and fingerprints, but also in terms of other existing and upcoming biometric technologies, such as live face recognition.
We’re talking about technology that, it appears to me and many others, will play an increasingly important part in all of our lives.
We need a way to keep up with fast-paced change in these areas so that the public can have the confidence that this technology will be used lawfully, responsibly, and in accordance with a set of clear, bright-line principles that will ensure that the circumstances of their use are dictated by what society agrees is acceptable, not just what technology allows.
According to the government’s reaction, it will look at whether the current Investigatory Powers Commissioner can take on part of the Biometrics Commissioner’s responsibilities.
Professor Sampson expressed his thoughts as follows:
As Biometrics Commissioner, I monitor the use of investigatory authorities using biometric data on an impartial basis, ensuring that they are utilized lawfully and in the public good.
This description is nearly identical to that of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and it makes far more sense for any transfer to go that way, which was not an option in the original consultation questions, though it is unclear who would be making the 100+ National Security Determinations decisions per month.
In this area, the government’s approach continues to be one of ‘incremental efforts’ to streamline regulation.
Professor Sampson went on to say:
If Parliament votes to relocate the functions, the next stage in the simplification process will be to create a single definition of biometrics.
In policing, the term “biometrics” now refers primarily to traditional fingerprints and DNA, but in schools, the term “biometrics” has a broader but less controlled connotation.
‘Next generation biometrics,’ such as facial recognition, iris, vascular patterns, hormones, and gait, are as much ‘biometrics’ as our fingerprints, and are a source of growing public concern, as we heard at an event in London this week on the ‘Legitimacy of facial recognition in policing and law enforcement.’
Furthermore, practically all of the capability in this field is privately held, necessitating proof that our private sector technology partners can be trusted in terms of security arrangements and ethical standards.
This would not only make things easier, but it would also align the UK with many other nations with whom we exchange biometric data for law enforcement and national security purposes.
In its consultation response, the government stated that it will work to eliminate “duplication” between Professor Sampson’s twin roles as ICO and Surveillance Camera Commissioner.
According to the Professor,
The Secretary of State’s requirement to establish a Code of Practice for the surveillance of public space directly informs the commissioner’s responsibilities.
If that obligation is given to the Information Commissioner, it is likely that compliance will fall to them, even though many of the public’s worries about the increase of state monitoring aren’t about data privacy.
Any framework for police use of biometric and overt surveillance technology will be judged on how far it allows us to know that their technical capabilities (what is possible) are only used for legitimate, authorised purposes (what is permissible) and in a way that the affected community is willing to support (what is acceptable).