Skip to main content

tv   Click - Short Edition  BBC News  May 11, 2019 3:30am-3:46am BST

3:30 am
in the uk, police are pushing ahead with live facial recognition, deploying specially equipped vans to events such as london's annual notting hill carnival and major football games. i am completely comfortable that the activity we are doing in the trials is lawful and appropriate. but this has become a highly controversial issue, with civil liberties groups claiming that the technology is inaccurate, intrusive and infringes on an individual‘s right to privacy. for the last year, jeff white has been following the uk police‘s this is bbc news, the headlines: deployment of facial recognition. crucial trade talks between the united states and the frontline in facial recognition. china in washington have ended police cameras in an east london after a two hour meeting. earlier, the us more than doubled tariffs on $200 billion street — everyone gets scanned. worth of chinese goods. if you refuse, here beijing says it will retaliate. is what can happen. if i want to cover my face i'll cover my face, don't push me over... a man whose fiance was killed in the london bridge attacks this man didn't want to be caught by the police has told the inquests the scene cameras, so he covered his face. was like a war zone. police stopped him, they photographed him anyway, a 24—year—old norwegian woman has died after contracting an argument followed. rabies from a stray dog in the philippines. how would you like it if you walked down the street bi rg itte kallestad was and someone grabbed you? travelling when the puppy officer: calm yourself down, or you're going in handcuffs. she took in bit her. woman: what's your suspicion? she fell ill soon after returning to norway, and died at the hospital where she worked. the fact he has walked past a clearly marked facial recognition thing, and covered his face...
3:31 am
i would do the same, simon armitage will be i would do the same. the new poet laureate. us grounds to stop him. he says he wants to use the role to ensure poetry embraces major no it doesn't! the police said this global issues, including was disorderly behaviour, so they gave him a fine. climate change. the chap told me down the road, he said they got facial recognition. so i walked past like that, it is a cold day as well, soon as i have done that, newswatch is up in around 15 the police officer has minutes, but first it's 00:01:19,911 --> 4294966103:13:29,430 time for click. asked me to come to him. i have got my back up, i said to him, (bleep) off, basically. i said i don't want my face shown on anything. if i want to cover my face, i will cover my face. no—one is going to tell me not to cover my face. i have a £90 fine, look at that. £90, thanks lads, £90, well done. he was caught up in the last of ten trials carried out by the metropolitan police. the met have had successes — there were three arrests from facial recognition on this test day alone. but the trials have proved controversial. opponents say they are taking place in a legal vacuum. there is nothing in uk law that has the words "facial recognition." there is no legal
3:32 am
basis for police to be using facial recognition. there are no legal limitations on how they can use it, no policy, no regulation. this is a free for all. we don't know who's on the watch lists, we didn't know how long the images were going to be stored for, and the police are kind of making up rules as they go along. my ultimate fear is that we would have live facial recognition capabilities on our gargantuan cctv network, which is about 6 million cameras in the uk. if that happens, the nature of life in this country would change. it would mean that everywhere we go we data trail, that your face could be searched and a detailed record of your movements gained. police argue that in a time when every smartphone camera has facial recognition, why should they be left behind? i believe, as does the commissioner and the management board of the met,
3:33 am
believe not trialling such technology would be neglectful. we ought to explore all technology to see how it can keep people safer, how it can make policing more effective. however we are completely aware of some of the concerns that are raised, and what we're doing with these trials is actually trying to understand those better, so we can actually protect human rights but also keep people safe at the same time. we're reviewing all capabilities in terms of live facial recognition, and absolutely the technology is there for body—worn or smaller devices to be fitted with facial recognition technology, as is cctv. so absolutely we will look at that, but again the right safeguards and the right reviews and learning have to be put around that. it is notjust cameras on vans. last summer, outside one of london's biggest shopping malls, police cctv scanned thousands of shoppers — aimed, they say, at spotting known criminals.
3:34 am
this is all about making our streets in our communities safer. people who are unlawfully at large may well be reoffending, and it's really clear that we need a tactic, another tactic, which is why we are deploying this technology now, to apprehend these individuals and bring them to justice. that is what the people want and that is what we are responding to. i want to be absolutely clear. the technology is very accurate and reliable. the human intervention side is the safeguard we have got in place. despite the warning signs, many passers—by do not know what was happening. when they found out, the reaction was mixed. some thought it was an improvement on current policing methods. it is better than stop—and—search. that's a good point. it is better than stop—and—search. at least that would be discriminative. it is a bit creepy, i have to say. i wouldn't like to feel like i am being watched all day long. it is notjust in london that the tech is being tested. south wales police have carried out more than a dozen
3:35 am
trials, including at the champions league final, using similar equipment to the met. after you, hop inside. it is quite cosy, isn't it. let's have a look. so we have two cameras on the roof of the vehicle, one at the front and one at the back. both 360 ability, so we can control them from in the vehicle. focus all around the vehicle. when tested on a member of police staff, the system quickly spotted herface and matched it almost instantly to a file photo, even though the two were quite different. here, heading to our headquarters, it has picked up, it has come up withjulia gardiner, it shows her name and almost instantly generates an alert. 0nce checked that alert can be relayed to an officer in the street, who can approach the suspect and verify the match. the system is incredibly sensitive. the starting point is the eyes, the eyes are really important in terms of facial recognition technology. 0ften those eyes are visible with face coverings, to include motorcycle helmets, so the technology does work with motorcycle helmets as well.
3:36 am
using facial recognition is not new for the police. what has changed is that systems like this one work in real—time and across massive numbers. the system acts as a big filter, it enables the officers to find that needle in a haystack. if you have got hundreds of thousands of people walking past the camera, it would be incredibly difficult with the human eye to stop one of the 700 you are looking for. so it gives the officers an indication, so it could be that individual. the system works by matching the camera footage to a database of file photos, and that is part of the controversy. so—called intelligence data bases include people who have never been convicted, as does the police national data base, which includes more than 10 million photos. that database then could include people who were found not guilty, perfectly innocent people. at the moment, but they can have their image removed. but only if they apply to? only if they apply to, but measures are afoot
3:37 am
to automate the process. south wales police and the met have finished their trials now, but in the meantime both forces are facing legal action from privacy campaigners over their use of facial recognition surveillance. one of my concerns, i don't know how you feel about this... london assembly member baroness jennyjones has strongly backed the legal challenge and has had personal experience of the issue. the police national database has all sorts of people like me, and you do not have to have committed a crime, not even be arrested to be on that database. that suggests to me that it is an extremely flawed way of trying to keep track of people, and once you are in it and once that information is on there, you have to request that it should come off, which is what i did finally. but you have to know that it's on there. if you don't know it's on there you can't get it removed, because you can't make the request. and that means that there would be all sorts of false positives on the system. so for me this is a very foolish move. and what is even worse
3:38 am
is that it is so inaccurate that on previous trials it has been 2% accurate, that means 98% inaccurate. so the policejudgement at times is very poor, and i can sort of see why they think this might be a good thing to do, but actually it is disastrous, and the sooner they listen to people who are saying "you've got to, if not stop completely, at least row back a bit, have a pause, and actually make sure you are using it in the right way." that was baroness jones finishing jeff's report, and jeff, facial recognition is really controversial yet the police are still going ahead with it. yes, i mean theirargument is that this isn't anything new. police officers have always had the usual suspects in the back of their mind, they're looking out for them on the street. what is different here is the speed and scale. so this is no longer about a police officer looking out for a few people in a hundred, this is cameras scanning hundreds and thousands of faces and comparing them instantly to databases of thousands of people. and that is what has
3:39 am
campaigners worried. you mentioned the usual suspects, which implies police are only using previous suspects' images. but where do they get their facial data from? this is the other controversial bit — a lot of police forces are using the police national database. this is a stash of millions of images police have accumulated over the years. there are controversies over how they have accumulated it, whether that database should still exist, and controversies about who is on it, some of these are people who have been arrested by cleared of any offence. arrested but cleared of any offence. another problem we hear about with artificial intelligence is the problem of bias in the training data, where a lot of ai is trained on white men, and so it's not as good at recognising the more diverse range of people that exist in the world. are the police aware of any bias is in the training data and what are they doing about it? as part of this investigation we have found that police have on several occasions had golden opportunities to check how well the software and systems deal with black and minority ethnic
3:40 am
faces, and on each occasion they have to investigate that. faces, and on each occasion they have failed to investigate that. the problem there is that there are already problems with power police deal with these communities in terms of stop—and—search, if that rolls into facial recognition there is another point of controversy brewing for police in the future with this technology. thank you for your time, thank you for those brilliant reports. and if you have any views on the subject, which i'm sure you will, why not get in touch with us on facebook or twitter. that's it for this week, thank you for watching, will see you soon.
3:41 am
hello and welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. a cause for celebration for the duke and duchess of sussex, but the cue for complaints from some. that bbc coverage of the new baby was excessive and sycophantic. and did bbc news give too much currency to the tweet sent by danny baker which resulted in his being sacked by radio five live? this time there were no cameras waiting for days outside a hospital, as there had been for the birth
3:42 am
of the duke and duchess of cambridges' three children. by the time the media were reporting that the duchess of sussex had gone into labour early on monday afternoon, her much anticipated child was already a few hours old and it was his father who broke the news live on television. i'm very excited to announce that meghan and myself had a baby boy early this morning. a very healthy boy. mother and baby are doing incredibly well. it's been the most amazing experience i could ever have possibly imagined. bbc news caught up quickly, devoting much of its output on monday afternoon to the new arrival. david buckton turned on the news channel at 6:00pm. the lead item, lasting, i think about 35 minutes was a report on the birth of a royal baby. and the next item was also about a report, this time on the urgent need for action on climate change.
3:43 am
ijust wonder which the bbc really thinks is the more important? i am sure the young family are delightful and i hope they have a good life, but isn't that really more of a tail end, human interest story than a really vital lead? over the next few days and particularly on wednesday when the first pictures of the baby, now revealed to be named archie, was shown, viewers continue to contact us about the tone as well as the extent of the coverage. here is nigel greensit and first, ben adams. the bbc went from reporting the news to its default position of speculation. we still don't know the name, of course. we are waiting. lots of speculation... you are running a news channel. you are not running the tv equivalent of hello or 0k magazines.
3:44 am
3:45 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on