Security News > 2020 > June > Brit police's use of facial-recognition tech is lawful, no need to question us, cops' lawyer tells Court of Appeal
South Wales Police and the UK Home Office "Fundamentally disagree" that automated facial recognition software is as intrusive as collecting fingerprints or DNA, a barrister for the force told the Court of Appeal yesterday.
Jason Beer QC, representing the South Wales Police also blamed the Information Commissioner's Office for "Dragging" the court into the topic of whether the police force's use of the creepy cameras complied with the Data Protection Act.
Liberty argues the police paid lip service to these, while police and the Home Office say the law is perfectly clear and that SWP did nothing wrong.
In written submissions O'Brien told the court it should concentrate solely on the use of Neoface's AFR Locate function by SWP, that being the stated reason for the appeal case, and not the wider legal issues engaged by AFR tech as a whole, a point the judges appeared to be sympathetic to earlier in the case.
Referring to the human "Failsafe" of police checking a match by eye as mentioned by Beer, the Home Office's barrister wrote: "These features of AFR Locate demonstrate why the extreme potential uses of AFR to which the Appellant refers do not assist in the resolution of this case. The Respondent employs AFR Locate at specific locations in the South Wales Police's area of responsibility. It could not lawfully or practically 'track the movements of individuals as they move around the country'."