PSI July 2019

PANEL
“Building trust is the
most important and,
of course, the most
difficult step that
needs to happen, it
must come from the
highest-level driven
by a set of clear
understandable and
transparent
regulations to all”
24
(from previous page)
It is understandable and a good thing that
the Police have been legally challenged given
their interpretation of how AFR can be applied
in the public domain. This will lead to an open
and thorough debate on how AFR can be used
and ensure the right level of legislation,
control and transparency is put in place. The
sooner this is achieved the better as AFR
technology is improving rapidly and should be
seen as a force for good and not be
misinterpreted as 'Big Brother'.
Building trust is the most important and, of
course, the most difficult step that needs to
happen, it must come from the highest-level
driven by a set of clear understandable and
transparent regulations to all. There also must
be a distinction between the state and the
private sector use of the technology. There is a
big difference here and if we are to make
progress, once again, understanding and
education must come soon ensuring fair and
appropriate use.
Cressida Dick mentioned in a recent TV
broadcast, that AFR is already being used by
the police, but they are a very early stage, with
just a few trials undertaken in limited
locations. Furthermore, she believes and
publicly stated that AFR is an important force
for good that must be embraced to make
society a safer place.
I support her view and believe AFR can have
a material positive impact on society when
applied appropriately. Businesses will use the
technology to reduce and deter crime,
prioritise the customer experience and enable
access rights to buildings and environments.
It's can be used to protect the individual
wellbeing, for example, protect self-excluder
gamblers or prevent urban explorers climbing
sky- scrappers. There are literally hundreds of
positive applications and equally if not
implemented correctly it can be presented as a
potential threat to society and your civil
liberties.
It is time to behave and act responsibly, as
this is one genie that won't be going back in
the bottle!
David Davies - DVS
I do think in the future, when
ever this may be, we will see
more regulation around the
use of surveillance systems
and its metadata that we
take from it, and I don’t think
we should take issue with
this. What we will most likely see is tighter
regulation on those that install, service &
maintain surveillance systems through the use
of accredited trade bodies, and of course we
already have these, but it’s not a mandatory
requirement to be part of this. if the industry
was to go this way it would mean a set of
people working to a common set of objectives
and standards , which would also include not
just physical installation methods but would
include skills to include data protection
awareness , privacy awareness , camera use
and deployment as well as compliance to
guidelines and legal compliance. From what I
can see this shift has already begun, but what
does this mean for regulation of system types
that would include specifics like facial
recognition, people counting, behaviour
analysis and the like? Like all things there is
always a place for this technology for the
security of property and people and we should
not be scared to embrace this technology, it
can have a very positive impact. But whatever
this dataset is used for we should make it
clear why it’s being used and for what
benefits, and how effective this technology is,
this could be an online portal where systems
have to be disclosed and the type of
technologies used, where practical and not
sensitive. We all want to be connected and
have faster, better, now. Sometimes we can
only achieve this through the use of these
technologies.
www.psimagazine.co.uk