Information about Facial Recognition

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.022107

I note you seek access to the following information:

Operational use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) by the Met Police including:

1. Where LFR is in routine operational usage
2. How many people have been stopped as a result of being identified by LFR technology
3. How many of these stops were accurate
4. How many of these stops were within the scope of the deployment (i.e., were not stopped and then arrested for a crime that was not within the original scope of the deployment)
5. How consent is gained, and how the Met believes this is legal.
6. An independent report claimed that it's likely the Met's use of LFR would be deemed illegal if it were taken to court, what changes have been made to the implementation of LFR in response to this.
7. If no changes were made, why not?

In January 2019, a man was stopped by police after objecting to being scanned by live facial recognition cameras and covering his face. He was surrounded by officers, and when he protested, he was given a £90 fine for an alleged public order offence.

However, the test deployments of LFR technology allowed people to make an informed consent decision.

8.Why was refusal to consent seen as suspicious behaviour? Why was this person fined?

This request is not time-bound, but please only include data related to routine operational deployment of LFR, not test deployments - unless otherwise specified.

Please provide all data in calendar years. Please provide the framework and guidelines you use for responsible LFR deployment.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 84 - defines the 'information' a public authority can be asked to provide under the Act. It makes clear that it means recorded information held in any form, electronic or paper

Reason for decision

Q8 - Why was refusal to consent seen as suspicious behaviour? Why was this person fined?

In respect of question 8 this is a general question, and not a request for information within the everyday meaning of the Act. Therefore, this question appears not to be a valid FOI request. To explain this further, s84 of FOIA relates to recorded information held by a public authority and that it does not extend to providing explanations unless the answers are already held in a recorded form.

"Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'.
The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form." (Day vs ICO & DWP – EA/2006/0069 Final Decision)

S.16 comment to advice/assist – this is asking about an activity that specifically relates to an individual. Even if this was a question seeking information, the approach is likely to be seeking personal data.

The Met’s definition of Live Facial Recognition or LFR is set out on page 4 of the LFR police document (LFR - Policy Document.pdf).

Disclosure

Q1 - Where LFR is in routine operational usage

This information is publicly available (LFR - Documents).

Q2 - How many people have been stopped as a result of being identified by LFR technology

This information is publicly available. (LFR - Documents).

Q3 - How many of these stops were accurate

This information is publicly available. (LFR - Documents).

Q4 - How many of these stops were within the scope of the deployment (i.e., were not stopped and then arrested for a crime that was not within the original scope of the deployment)

No stops outside the scope of a deployment can occur as the result of an LFR match as it is only images of persons within the scope of a deployment that are included within an LFR deployment’s watchlist.

Q5 - How consent is gained, and how the Met believes this is legal.

This information is publicly available. (LFR -Documents).

Q6 - An independent report claimed that it's likely the Met's use of LFR would be deemed illegal if it were taken to court, what changes have been made to the implementation of LFR in response to this.

We assume that this is a reference to the “Independent Report on the London Metropolitan Police Service’s trial of LFR technology”. Since the publication of this report, the legal positon has moved on considerably. The Met’s legal basis for the use of is publically available in the LFR Legal Mandate at this link: (LFR - Documents).

Q7 - If no changes were made, why not?

Please refer to the answer above.