A drugs suspect arrested in Brighton was the first to be nabbed as a result of being flagged by new facial recognition cameras.
Sussex Police introduced the technology last month, and have been touring it around the county.
On 2 December, a 42-year-old man became the first to be arrested as a result.
He was identified as being wanted for offences linked to the supply of drugs and organised crime and was stopped in Western Road.
He was arrested on suspicion of offences including possession of a class A drug with intent to supply, participating in activities linked to an organised crime group, money laundering, and fraud by false representation.
Detective Chief Superintendent Carwyn Hughes, business lead for live facial recognition (LFR) technology for Surrey Police and Sussex Police, said: “This was a remarkable arrest made by officers in just the second deployment of its type in Sussex.
“We are focussing on individuals who are on our police watch lists, including wanted persons and individuals who have been made the subject of court orders.
“This arrest demonstrates that the technology and our teams are focussed on catching criminals who present the most harm to our communities.”
Live facial recognition technology is a real-time deployment comparing a live camera feed (or multiple feeds) of faces against a pre-determined watchlist. This will include wanted people like sex offenders and perpetrators of domestic abuse.
Images of people who are not on the pre-determined watchlist will be instantly deleted forever from the system, thereby reducing impact on their human rights. Watchlist images are deleted within 24 hours after each day of the deployment.
Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne said: “Live Facial Recognition technology is already proving its value in helping Sussex Police identify and apprehend dangerous criminals and sexual predators who pose the greatest risk to the public.
“I pushed for this tech to be used because I think it’s important for people to know exactly who they’re standing next to in the high street and for those serving the remainder of their sentence in the community to know that Sussex Police can effectively ensure they’re adhering to their sentence conditions.
“It’s a powerful tool for keeping people safe but it must be used responsibly and transparently.
“At my next Performance and Accountability Meeting with the Chief Constable, I will be scrutinising how this technology is being deployed, including addressing public concerns around privacy and potential bias.
“My priority is to ensure that its use remains proportionate, ethical and focused on protecting the public.”
The deployment of LFR vans follows a successful bid by both Surrey Police and Sussex Police to obtain two LFR vans from the Home Office and, after extensive planning, these are now live. The vans were successfully deployed for the first time in Redhill and Crawley last month.
For the people of interest who are flagged by the software as being on the watchlist, an officer will confirm the match before a decision is made about whether there are grounds for appropriate engagement or arrest.
In line with statutory requirements, the vans are clearly signposted when deployed and deployment locations are publicised on our website in advance. Deployments will also only be authorised by those of a Superintendent rank and in a proportionate manner.
The 42-year-old man from Brighton who was arrested on December 2 has been bailed, pending further enquiries.
Great stuff – now make it illegal for cyclists (esp. food delivery riders) and PEV users to wear masks.
Agreed, and while they are at it, all cars should be open top so you can see the drivers faces at all times.
Luckily cars have number plates and registered owners who will be charged if they offend (unless they can prove someone else was driving).
And if they do break the law they can be fined, get points on their licences, disqualified.
Another of Mark Fry’s lovely Millennials…
Interesting to read about this technology being used over the current CCTV trawling. Targeted use against serious offenders makes sense to me, as long as independent oversight is real and enforced. The test will be whether this remains proportionate rather than drifting into routine surveillance, methinks.
Wait until you get stopped because of a tweet you made 10 years ago!
Or better still an unpaid parking ticket from a holiday abroad that you never knew about.
The totalitarian tiptoe.. Once the datacentres are up and running, we will all be monitored constantly.
Contentious tweet? Instant fine.
Critical of Israel? Bank account frozen.
etc. etc.
Welcome to Dystopia.
Worth noting that Brighton already has extensive CCTV coverage in the city centre and has done for years. LFR is more accurately described as a different way of using cameras that already exist, speeding up a method that already exists – hardly a leap into dystopia.
Correct – tiptoeing is not leaping. It’s a step in that direction. Digital ID will be another.
I would argue it’s not even a tiptoe, since what this article describes here is being done manually already and has done so for many years. I accept the argument of oversight and overreach, which you allude to, though.
I don’t agree with Digital ID. The Select Committee on the subject really solidified my opinion on that one. I don’t think the benefits are there, I don’t think it will prevent ineligible workers, and the risks of data loss and theft are too high.
Well if it’s only an inconvenience to bad people that most of us would be happy to see behind bars, great, but it seems a bit naive to believe that’s all it will be used for once fully implemented. It’s still early days and I don’t think most of us can even imagine how much data about each and every one of us will be stored, manipulated by AI, hacked by bad actors and used to control every aspect of our lives.
Yeah, and that’s completely fair and reasonable caution to have. I think even right now, people would be surprised at how much data on us is already held. In these early days, we absolutely should make sure that there is independent oversight to ensure that overreach doesn’t happen.
Brighton and hove do have the means to shred original minutes of conversations when you ask for the original transcript.
So tampering with evidence seems to be the norm .
Hence a 3 stage process for complaints.
Difference being we live in the real world of personal experience. Where as you just copy and paste and pass it off as your own
Another baseless accusation detached from reality, Rupert. I get you’re probably a bit lonely today, but you can’t go around throwing random conspiracies and expect to be taken seriously. Considering that I have gone through the complaints processes on behalf of people many times before, I know you have been given multiple chances to confirm information, from your initial complaint, to what was said and done. You have, as standard, a clear email chain that is your untamperable evidence. That’s your Stage 1.
If you think their reasoning is flawed, again, there’s a clear chain of emails and opportunities to argue your case in how you think the process was managed incorrectly, with a response and reasoning at the end. That’s your Stage 2. That’s the end of BHCCs process.
Beyond that, you take it to the ombudsman, which is separate. They ask for you two go through the council’s two-stage process first, typically.
This is all very clearly defined. https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/feedback-about-council-services/how-make-complaint
It’s not baseless when you have been through the 3 stage process.
Evidence tampering
Template reports fraudulently produced without the right authority to order which is an abuse of process.
Turning up when not ordered to do so only to file more accusations when CCTV is involved.
Just as well I used covert recordings of all meetings.
But your right . It really was too much in the end dealing with paternity fraud
You haven’t been through a three-stage process with the council, because a three-stage process has never existed.
Oversight to prevent overreach… I bet you believe in Santa Claus! 🙂
Ha! Yeah, I’m optimistic at the best of times! I figure there are enough conspiracy theorists and pessimists around that I’d rather think positively. Merry Christmas Bert!
The Rt Hon Nick Herbert CBE MP wrote —-
Dear Rupert,
Completely understand you view point and understand you have had a distressing time but the points you have raised in your previous email are of a public interest, therefore if you go to a surgery I believe Nick will want to write a letter to the relevant department in order to flag your concerns. Which is what I am offering to do, which Nick will sign.
The surgery meetings are for people who need advising on urgent situations that are affecting them at that very moment. If you were to attend a meeting, what would you be asking Nick to do, just so I can figure out whether it is in your best interest to have one.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely.
Lynsey
Lynsey White | Secretary & Caseworker | The Rt Hon Nick Herbert CBE MP
MP for Arundel & South Downs
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Nick Herbert hasn’t been an MP for over six years. This has nothing to do with anything related to this article, or anything Bert and I were discussing.