For people walking towards Stratford underground station in east London on Tuesday, the large blue van parked in the entrance with two large cameras mounted on its roof was hard to ignore.
Most passers-by paused to read one of the four signs around the van, despite the biting wind that was blowing them over. Some stopped to speak to one of the officers standing around in uniform, asking questions and expressing their approval. Others shook their heads in disbelief as they took out their phones to photograph the signs, or covered their faces with scarves to prevent identification as they walked past.
This is the Met Police’s first live deployment of facial recognition technology in London, following 10 trials around the city since 2016 and months of public debate about the use of the controversial biometric software on the public. The rollout comes in the wake of similar deployments in countries including China, Brazil, India and Wales.
Three weeks ago, the Met announced it would start using live facial recognition on the capital’s streets, saying it was satisfied that the technology was a “tried and tested” tool that had proved itself to accurately identify people suspected of serious crimes such as knife attacks.
In Scotland, by contrast, members of parliament said on Tuesday that there was no justification to use live biometrics, given concerns over human rights, calling the deployment of the technology a “radical departure” from the current practice of policing by consent. The Scottish police has said it has put plans for facial recognition on hold.
But among the police officers present in Stratford during the first hours of the rollout, there were no signs of concern about controversy — despite the presence of protesters from Big Brother Watch, and London Assembly member Sian Berry, who has opposed the rollout.
They answered questions from the public sympathetically, reassuring people they had nothing to worry about — if they had not committed a crime in the area.
Police commander Mark McEwan said the cameras worked by matching faces to a watchlist of about 5,000 people, who were either wanted by the police or missing persons whose images were provided by family members. He also confirmed the algorithms were produced by Japanese company NEC and were the most up-to-date versions available.
The two cameras faced forward on to the street, and continuously recorded faces for over five hours, starting from 11am. About four hours into the deployment, nobody had been flagged by the systems, despite hundreds passing through, according to Inspector Chris Nixon, who is responsible for policing in the local area.
Several passers-by were willing to share their views on the use of the technology. “It is appalling. This is the ultimate invasion of privacy. You can’t walk the streets with machines looking at your face. What if I’ve committed no crime, but now my face is on your database?” said Joat, a music entrepreneur from Stratford, who mentors youth from local gangs, including musician J Hus. “How do they define criminal? It’s a matter of perspective. These are troubling times.”
Nisson Omran, a 19-year-old student from Kingston university, agreed. “I think it’s ridiculous, it’s an invasion of privacy. They have no consent. And why have they picked Stratford?” she said. “If it hasn’t been passed and debated in parliament, I don’t know how they can use it.”
Others, such as students Jak Norov and Irfan Boota, thought it was a good way to reduce crime with fewer resources. “I think it’s positive, it will stop crimes like drug-dealing, which is always happening on the other side of the tracks, and knife crime,” said Mr Norov, 30.
Mr McEwan, who was leading the operation, said: “The decision that’s made to engage with someone is always made by an officer. This is a prompt to them, to engage or identify a person. But it’s what police have always done.”
Last year an independent review commissioned by the Met published a damning report about the force’s facial recognition trials in London, warning that the technology was only 19 per cent accurate, and likely to contravene human rights.
However, police in Stratford said they did not agree with the numbers.
“We are content that through tests we have carried out, the false positives are 1 in 1,000 people. It has been tested for bias and accuracy,” said Mr McEwan.
