The Metropolitan Police says most people in Lewisham support its live facial-recognition (LFR) technology, but a community impact assessment (CIA) reveals a different story. Documents obtained by Computer Weekly indicate that the Met had limited direct consultation with residents, while local councillors continue to voice concerns.
In August 2024, Lewisham councillors expressed frustration over the lack of community engagement before the police announced the use of LFR in the area. This announcement came just a month after councillors urged the Met to strengthen its outreach. When asked about the councillors’ concerns, a Met spokesperson insisted that most Lewisham residents, business owners, and political representatives backed the LFR deployments. They stated that the Met had carried out more than six briefings over six months to explain LFR and address questions.
However, the CIA shows scant mention of actual resident feedback. While the Met claims broad support, the CIA notes mixed opinions about the technology within the community. It acknowledges that while there’s no evidence of criminal disruptions related specifically to LFR, there will likely be some community opposition.
The CIA also highlights that the Met held seven meetings between March and August 2024. These included five with various council bodies and two public discussions aimed at sharing information about LFR. Councils involved were committees that scrutinized LFR, the Lewisham Independent Advisory Group, and the Safer Neighbourhoods Board. Members from the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee urged the Met to improve communication and engage more effectively with residents.
Independent councillor Hau-Yu Tam, who sits on the Safer Stronger committee, pointed out the lack of proper engagement. She mentioned only one formal consultation with Lewisham’s Safer Neighbourhoods Board as recorded in the CIA. Tam criticized the Metropolitan Police’s approach as a mere box-ticking exercise.
She emphasized that many potential critics of LFR don’t get the chance to voice their opinions, noting that the consultations typically favor those already supportive of the technology. An email from a Met officer to an SNB member, shared with Computer Weekly, illustrates this. It frames LFR predominantly in terms of its perceived benefits, particularly in relation to protecting women from violence, instead of addressing broader community concerns.
Tam believes this approach obscures the reality of community sentiments. “People want safer streets and enhanced community connections, not necessarily LFR as a surveillance tool,” she said.
Following inquiries, Met representatives claimed they’re committed to transparency in using LFR. They argued that extensive community engagement occurs, providing forums for discussions alongside accountability measures regarding the technology’s use.
Civil society groups, however, dispute the Met’s claims. Liberty and Big Brother Watch have criticized the police’s notion of “community engagement.” They argue that the engagement is superficial, mainly involving high-level officials rather than everyday residents. Critics emphasize that for true community engagement to happen, the police need to allow space for genuine concerns to be raised and heard.
The Met’s approach also seems at odds with the sentiments in local council decisions. For instance, in January 2023, Newham Council called for a suspension of LFR until proper safeguards were enacted due to concerns about racial bias and privacy.
In November 2024, MPs finally debated LFR technology’s use, discussing privacy rights, bias, and the lack of regulations governing its application. There seemed to be a shared view that further regulations are necessary, especially given the lengthy period without meaningful debates on the topic despite its controversial implications.