The force has increased its use of retrospective facial recognition, where algorithms help identify people caught on camera at crime scenes by comparing their faces with millions of custody images stored on a UK-wide police database.
The figures were released under Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation following a request to the Home Office by the investigative unit Liberty Investigates, and shared with The Ferret.
Police Scotland’s searches of the facial matching function on the police database jumped from just under 1300 in 2018 to nearly 4000 in 2022.
READ MORE: National Galleries of Scotland: ‘We’ll work more with communities'
This made the Scottish police the fourth most prolific force in the UK for using retrospective facial recognition last year. More than 2000 searches were carried out in the first four months of 2023, suggesting the rate is continuing to accelerate.
Police Scotland has described the technology – where a shortlist of matches is generated and then reviewed by an officer retrospectively – as an “extremely useful tool in helping officers to identify those who commit crimes”, including child exploitation.
But campaigners and politicians have pointed to evidence that facial recognition technology can throw up “false positives” – people wrongly matched to the suspect by the software – and has been shown to be biased against women and people of colour.
One expert, who has advised the Scottish Government on facial recognition in the past, said Police Scotland should suspend its use of the technology until it can prove there is “robust evidence” that its use is “appropriate, proportionate and effective”.
The police database holds millions of images of people held in custody by police forces across the UK, including many who were found to be innocent and released without charge or later cleared at trial.
According to the Home Office data, the total searches by all forces in the UK increased from 3360 in 2014 to 85,158 in 2022. Last year, nearly 30% – 24,677 – of searches were carried out by the Metropolitan Police.
Other forces whose searches increased dramatically include Merseyside Police, who made 125 searches in 2014 and 3896 last year. Police Scotland was just behind, clocking up a total of 3848 searches in 2022.
In 2012, the High Court ruled that the Metropolitan Police was in breach of human rights legislation because it had retained images of a woman and a boy arrested despite taking no further action against them. Five years later, then home secretary Amber Rudd said police forces must delete images of innocent people at their request. However, campaigners say many images of innocent people remain on the databases.
Police Scotland operates a distinct policy to other forces, only uploading custody images to the database once an individual has been charged with a crime and removing images of those found innocent.
But the removal of the custody images of people found innocent at trial can take up to six months. Scots who are charged by forces in other parts of the UK will remain on the database even if proven innocent, unless they specifically ask to be removed. Police Scotland also retains custody images from old IT systems used by local forces before the national force was set up. These include pictures of those convicted of any past crime, including minor ones, who may still show up in searches today.
The UK database – known as the Police National Database (PND) and managed by the Home Office – has a facial search function which compares images of suspects caught on CCTV, mobile phones or dashcams with custody images. A shortlist of potential facial matches is produced and then reviewed by an officer to decide if any match the suspect.
It was introduced following the Soham murders of schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells in 2002. Their killer Ian Huntley was known to various English police forces but information was not shared between them.
Despite police claims of its effectiveness, research has shown that most facial recognition algorithms perform poorly when identifying anyone who isn’t a white man. This means women and people with darker skin tones are more likely to face wrongful arrest after they were incorrectly identified by the technology.
Liam McArthur MSP, justice spokesperson for the Scottish LibDems, criticised the “exponential rise” in the use of retrospective facial recognition by Police Scotland “despite ample evidence about the shortcomings and risks involved”.
In October 2019, an inquiry into the issue was held by the Scottish Parliament’s justice sub-committee. A subsequent report welcomed confirmation from Police Scotland that it has no intention to introduce the “live” use of facial recognition technology – where suspects can be monitored and identified in real time – despite a stated aim to do so by 2026 in its 10-year strategic plan.
But it also recommended that the use of retrospective facial recognition was reviewed by the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner – a new role tasked with overseeing Police Scotland’s use of data that can be used to identify people.
McArthur said: “We know, for example, that facial recognition throws up far too many ‘false positives’ and contains inherent biases that are known to be discriminatory.
“Of course, the police should be able to make the best use of available technology in their efforts to combat crime and keep communities safe. They must do this, however, with appropriate safeguards in place and with a clear legal framework underpinning the use of tools like facial recognition.”
Professor Angela Daly, a member of the Scottish Government’s independent advisory group on new technologies in policing, told The Ferret the sharp escalation in use of retrospective facial recognition technology was a “concerning development” which should lead to a further “public, democratic discussion about what is acceptable in terms of police use of technology”.
READ MORE: Scottish and Catalan language together in music
Daly argued retrospective facial recognition should be suspended until Police Scotland can prove its use is “appropriate, proportionate and effective and that it has social licence from the public to do so”.
Patrick Corrigan, head of nations and regions at Amnesty International UK, argued for an “outright ban” on facial recognition because of its potential to “exacerbate systemic racism” in policing.
“That there seems to be an increase in use of the PND by Police Scotland is in no way coherent with its commitment to operate as a rights-based organisation,” Corrigan added.
The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, Brian Plastow, who is also a former police chief superintendent, said he didn’t have concerns about the number of searches being carried out. But he said Police Scotland should do more to improve public confidence and trust by publishing data for transparency purposes.
He questioned the reliability of facial recognition software, claiming it was “not validated or accredited to any recognised international scientific standard”.
“By contrast, the technologies used for DNA and fingerprints conform to international scientific standards and the processes deployed are accredited by the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS),” he added.
A review of the retention of images on legacy systems is being conducted, he said, and he is due to report to the Scottish Parliament in March 2024.
A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “Police Scotland uses facial matching technology provided through the Home Office’s Police National Database. It is proven technology and can help protect our communities from criminals.
“It is also an extremely useful tool in helping officers to identify those who commit crimes including child abuse and exploitation, fraud and extortion, which continue to grow with increasing sophistication.”
The Scottish Government spokesperson said the decision to use any technology with facial recognition capability was an operational manner for Police Scotland.
In 2015, Glasgow City Council attempted to introduce surveillance cameras, provided by Israeli technology firm NICE, which it said would allow council staff to monitor crowds and look out for intruders or people loitering in parks, landmarks and back lanes, based on information about their clothing, height and other distinguishing features.
However, this “Suspect Search” system has still not been used due to data protection laws and concerns raised by civil liberties campaigners and trade unions, as previously reported by The Ferret.
At the Conservative Party conference in October, the UK policing minister, Chris Philp, said he wanted to add people’s passport photos into the PND. The proposal was condemned by biometrics commissioner Brian Plastow, who said it was “unethical and potentially unlawful”.
Philp also wrote to police chiefs in England and Wales in October urging them to double their use of retrospective facial recognition.
Last month, the outgoing Home Office biometrics and surveillance commissioner warned that Britain is an “omni-surveillance” society.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here