Shaun Thompson, 39, is taking a High Court challenge against the Metropolitan Police after live facial recognition technology mistakenly identified him as a suspect. The event occurred in February last year outside London Bridge Tube station, where he was stopped by police, describing the experience as ‘intimid’ting’ and ‘aggressive.’ Privacy group Big Brother Watch highlighted the judicial review as the first legal case against the technology. The Met stated it is enhancing its LFR deployments while asserting the legality of its use. Mr. Thompson is concerned about the potential impact on others, especially young people who may be misidentified, comparing the situation to the science fiction film ‘Minority Report.’
Mr. Thompson said his experience of being stopped had been ‘intimidating’ and ‘aggressive.’ ‘Every time I come past London Bridge, I think about that moment. Every single time,’ he said. He described how he had been returning home from a shift in Croydon, south London, with the community group Street Fathers, which aims to protect young people from knife crime. As he passed a white van, he said police approached him and told him he was a wanted man. ‘When I asked what I was wanted for, they said, ‘that’s what we’re here to find out.’ He said officers asked him for his fingerprints, but he refused, and he was let go only after about 30 minutes, after showing them a photo of his passport.
Mr. Thompson says he is bringing the legal challenge because he is worried about the impact LFR could have on others, particularly if young people are misidentified. ‘I want structural change. This is not the way forward. This is like living in Minority Report,’ he said, referring to the science fiction film where technology is used to predict crimes before they’re committed. ‘This is not the life I know. It’s stop and search on steroids. ‘I can only imagine the kind of damage it could do to other people if it’s making mistakes with me, someone who’s doing work with the community.’ Bruce66423 comments: ‘I suspect a payout of 10,000 pounds for each false match that is acted on would probably encourage more careful use, perhaps with a payout of 100,000 pounds if the same person is victimized again.’
While the Metropolitan Police remains confident in the legality of its use of live facial recognition technology, the incident has raised significant concerns about privacy, potential misuse, and the rights of individuals. The police have stated that the technology is used to identify dangerous offenders and has been expanded as part of their broader security measures. However, critics argue that the technology’s accuracy and potential for error could have serious consequences, particularly for vulnerable groups such as young people. This case marks a pivotal moment in the legal battle over the use of such technology, as it brings to light the challenges of balancing public safety with individual privacy and civil liberties.
As the case moves forward, it is likely to set important precedents for the use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement. The outcome of the judicial review could influence future policies and regulations regarding the use of such technology, potentially leading to increased oversight or changes in how these systems are deployed. In the meantime, the incident has sparked a broader conversation about the ethical implications of using advanced surveillance technologies in everyday life. As technology continues to evolve, so too do the debates about its role in society and the need for transparency, accountability, and respect for individual rights.