Members of the House of Lords are raising serious concerns about retailers’ use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology. They want to see new laws ensuring that private companies use it safely and ethically.
In May 2024, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee (JHAC) started looking into shoplifting. Their inquiry examined how police and retailers are using live and retrospective facial recognition (RFR) to combat retail crime. The JHAC recently wrote to the Home Office to share their concerns about these technologies in retail. They are urging the UK government to establish clear principles and minimum standards for using such technology, particularly when it involves crime prevention by private companies.
The Lords pointed out that retailers often work together to create localized databases and watchlists of suspected shoplifters. The problem is that there’s no clear criminal threshold for getting onto one of these lists. This raises significant issues. An individual could find themselves on a facial recognition watchlist and could be banned from multiple stores simply based on a security guard’s discretion—without any formal police report or notification to the individual.
The JHAC expressed worries about what they see as a privatization of policing here. Decisions made based on data from private databases lack transparency, and individuals wrongly identified face limited options for recourse. They also raised issues about possible breaches of GDPR and the risk of bias inherent in the algorithms used, which studies have shown are less accurate for individuals with darker skin.
The committee cited evidence from Big Brother Watch, which pointed out that the European Union’s AI Act generally prohibits the use of LFR due to its risks to individual rights and freedoms. They emphasized the potential for bias and discrimination resulting from the algorithms.
During their hearings in September 2024, retailers indicated that LFR may not be very effective in preventing shoplifting for the very reasons the committee pointed out. However, they argued that using RFR to identify offenders after incidents should become standard practice.
Paul Garrard from the Co-op mentioned that while they don’t use LFR in real-time, they compile “evidence packs” for police when reporting thefts. These packs include information like CCTV footage and clips from staff body cameras, which are then run through RFR systems.
In October 2023, the UK government kicked off Project Pegasus, a partnership involving 14 major retailers like M&S and Boots. This initiative lets retailers share CCTV footage with police to run it through the Police National Database using RFR software. The JHAC noted the positive impacts of Pegasus on organized retail crime and suggested it should continue to receive funding for another year.
The JHAC called for better systems for retailers to report crimes to police, including a “retail flag” to help identify crimes in retail. This aims to streamline the reporting process and improve collaboration between retailers and law enforcement.
Previously, the JHAC investigated advanced algorithmic technology used by UK police, finding that many were deploying these tools without a rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness. They described the current approach as resembling a “new Wild West,” lacking accountability and transparency from the top down. Given the potential consequences of mishandling these technologies—especially regarding privacy rights—the committee believes a stronger legal framework is essential.
A follow-up inquiry suggested that police are rapidly expanding their use of LFR without adequate oversight. The government claimed there is already a “comprehensive legal framework” governing its use.
In a statement, a Home Office spokesperson pointed to rising shoplifting rates as a reason for supporting facial recognition technology. They mentioned actions taken to address low-value shoplifting and assaults on shopworkers. The spokesperson highlighted that facial recognition is a vital tool for identifying offenders and restoring public trust in policing.
Calls for new legal frameworks around biometric use have come from various fronts, including former biometrics commissioners, legal reviews, and committees urging a halt to LFR usage as far back as July 2019. Concerns about the lack of clarity surrounding public space surveillance and data retention practices have also been spotlighted.