Facial recognition technology has been rolled out twice this season by South Wales Police for fixtures between Cardiff and Swansea, leading to anger and protest from supporters and civil liberty groups.
Image via flickr - West Midlands Police: https://flic.kr/p/egf4tA
This is not the first time that South Wales Police have used this controversial tool, using it at other public events. A legal claim was brought to court by an activist questioning the legality of the use of this technology.
The case that was brought forward to a Cardiff High Court was the first to legally challenge the Police over their facial recognition operations.
Claims were brought that the technology caused ‘distress’, infringed upon privacy rights and undermined data protection rights. The courts held that it did infringe upon privacy rights but that it was not illegal for the Police to deploy this technology. In light of this verdict, an appeal will be taken to the Court of Appeal, who will likely hear the case in January 2021.
Facial recognition vans were seen patrolling the vicinity of the Cardiff City Stadium prior to kick off. Fans reacted with a small protest, whilst others took extra measures to combat this technology by wearing masks and scarves wrapped around their face.
It must be asked whether this will make football safer, or more appealing to families. The game has been increasingly marketed to try and attract families through the door, but parents may have to reconsider if other fans feel that extra measures will have to be taken to avoid this intrusive technology. Additionally, parents may not be comfortable with their children being subjected to facial recognition technology where surveillance pictures are kept on databases for weeks.
Football supporters are no strangers to being filmed at football matches. Although facial recognition is the new technology being used; filming and surveillance has long had a place in the match day experience for fans up and down the country. This is equally just as intrusive, and complaints by supporters of this policing strategy seem to have been justified by a study reported by a group of Scottish universities. The report concluded that the filming of football supporters is ‘counterproductive’. This is because filming often stokes up tension with already highly charged crowds, aggravating the issue. This then generates the opposite effect of singling out ‘troublemakers’, instead allowing them to blend in with the hysteria.
Mass filming treats supporters as guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other, correct, way round. Also, supporters complain that that the tactics used against them are disproportionate to the risks posed by them. Excessive filming is often seen as just looking for trouble. It has been used as a substitute for personal, common-sense policing approach which is generally seen to be more effective in managing large crowds - the majority whom are well-behaved.
What makes supporters a target for this sort of treatment? There has always been an unshakable political need to tackle football ‘hooliganism’ hard, backed up by frenzy from the media and the general public. This was necessary when hooliganism was the ‘English disease’ in the 80s and 90s, but the problem has improved following work done by the authorities, and as a consequence has reduced over time. Surely then, Police action should also reduce as a result? Outdated attitudes need to change, and excessive treatment needs to be curbed.
The Metropolitan Police have participated in the deployment of facial recognition software at the King’s Cross development in central London between 2016 and 2018. Secret trials have also taken place at Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield, which could have scanned more than 2 million visitors. A similar trial was in operation at the Trafford Centre in Manchester before pressure by the surveillance camera commissioner caused the site to stop using the technology.
Of course, technology that can help the authorities in the fight against criminality must be explored. However, there are serious concerns regarding the accuracy of facial recognition technology. A look over at its implementation in the United States highlights its discriminatory nature based on race, where it has failed miserably in identifying African Americans compared to Caucasians, for example.
Things in the UK do not look any rosier; a study by the University of Essex on the Met’s use of this technology concluded a success rate of only 19% over 6 trials. Although only in its infancy, this does not make for good reading. When such fundamental human rights are on the line, accuracy with the technology used seems like the most basic of requirements. If this is not secured, it could have far-reaching and damaging consequences for society. As for football fans, it’s likely that facial recognition will become the new norm, along with all over surveillance methods employed on match days, even if it is ‘counterproductive’.