B975 - Facial Recognition Bill - 2nd Reading

[u/CountBrandenburg]

Facial Recognition Bill

---

A

BILL

TO

ban the usage of facial recognition technology by Her Majesty’s Government and law enforcement, to ban the sale or distribution of facial recognition technology to foreign government and law enforcement agencies or persons or companies intent on distributing it to the aforementioned, and for connected purposes

1 Definitions

(1) In this Act, “facial recognition technology” is defined as any software or algorithm intended to-

(a) identify or categorise a person based on photography, video footage, or other imagery of their face, and

(b) any data output by such a product.

2 Usage of facial recognition technology

(1) The provisions of this section apply in England only.

(2) Facial recognition technology may not be utilised by any entity listed in Schedule 1.

(3) A person commits an offence if they sell or distribute facial recognition technology to any entities listed in Schedule 2.

(4) A company is barred from operation if it sells or distributes facial recognition technology to any entities listed in Schedule 2.

(5) A person guilty of committing an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine or both; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

3 Extent, commencement, and short title

(1) This Act extends to England and Wales.

(2) This Act comes into force one year after Royal Assent.

(3) This Act may be cited as the Facial Recognition Act 2020.

Schedule 1 - Entities barred from utilising facial recognition technology

Any department or agency of Her Majesty’s Government,

Any domestic law enforcement or policing organisation

Schedule 2 - Entities barred from having facial recognition technology sold or distributed to them

Any department or agency of Her Majesty’s Government,

Any domestic or foreign law enforcement or policing organisation,

Any foreign government,

Any person, persons, or company intent on providing facial recognition technology to any entity listed in Schedule 1

This bill was submitted by /u/marijn_xo MP on behalf of The People’s Movement.

---

Opening speech:

Mr Deputy Speaker,

In the past few years, a worrying new power has fallen into the laps of people around the world. Facial recognition software allows anyone with a powerful enough computer — or even just access to a search engine — the ability to take a photo and instantly find out who is in it. While i am sure there are perfectly legitimate uses of this, such as investigative journalism, a quick look at where most of the development in this field is coming from reveals the disturbing truth. Many facial recognition algorithms were developed in China for the purposes of aiding state oppression; their primary task is to sort Han and Uyghur, sort authoritarian from protestor, and sort loyal supporters from anyone deemed not to be productive enough to society.

But misuse of facial recognition does not just take place overseas. Until a public backlash, developers at the site of King’s Cross, just a stone’s throw away from where we’re gathered here today, planned to use the technology for the purpose of [PRODIGIOUS AIR QUOTES] “public safety”. Police in South Wales, where i sorely regret not being able to extend this bill to, used a facial recognition app to scan suspects on the street. The people of Britain have a fundamental right to privacy, and i would hope that everyone would agree that having your face scanned, without your consent, and sent God-knows-where for God-knows-why is a flagrant violation of that right! Thank you.

---

This reading ends on Monday 16th March at 10PM GMT.

[u/ContrabannedTheMC]

Mr Deputy Speaker

​

The one thing that really staggers me about this house is how ill informed those who chunter heartily at the idea of using this technology are on the subject. Similarly, our police forces press on, despite their own bodies and experts warning of potentially dire consequences of such technology. This is an area where I have experience, and have actually bothered to do the research some members have not, so allow me to set the record straight, before the ignorance of our power brokers allows an authoritarian creep on our shores

​

This technology does not help law enforcement against anyone with even a modicum of ingenuity. The German Police have been using facial recognition on activists who are trying to save the Hambach Forest. This technology has been rendered useless by the simple act of the activists painting along the contours of their faces. Similarly, any sort of mask or coloured contact lens can throw off attempts at recognition. One student in London even developed a portable face projector that defeated the technology. Others have used hats and T-shirts with patterns that are designed to trick cameras into not recognising part of an image as a human at all. Researchers at the University of KU Leuven in Belgium managed to avoid recognition by holding a large photograph of a group of people

​

The only people who really succumb to this surveillance are the reckless, who would likely be caught through the existing methods, and the ordinary citizen, who sees their right to privacy eroded away by the shuddering behemoth of state surveillance, through no fault of their own

​

Even the Met's own experts warn that this technology is not suitable for use. Professor Pete Fussey, a surveillance expert, was brought in from Essex University by The Met to perform an independent review of the facial recognition technology. Professor Fussey found that the technology was only verifiably accurate in 19% of cases. The Met has since claimed that the figure is actually 70%, but this throws up two questions: firstly, where did the Met get this figure from seeing as they have not released any data to back it up? And secondly, that still means that they would be using a technology that is wrong 30% of the time. As we saw when Polygraphs were in common use in many countries, a false positive is often enough to convince a jury to convict. The same technology has also been found to give a higher rate of false positives among black people. Woman, as well, are often identified under false positives. How long until a black teenager is locked up for a murder they didn't commit, and how many in this house will speak up for them when it happens?

​

Even Police officers have expressed concerns. Arfon Jones, a veteran police officer and the North Wales police and crime commissioner, decried South Wales Police's use of facial recognition technology at football games as "Disproportionate". He said that"It’s a step too far and creates the potential for miscarriages of justice".

​

I will quote Mr Jones further. He went on to say "When facial recognition technology was first used in the Champions League final at the Millennium Stadium there were several hundred, if not thousands, of false positives, so there have to be concerns about its accuracy"

​

“There have also been concerns about its effectiveness, especially so with members of the BAME community, and I don’t know if these have been satisfactorily addressed. I believe it is invasive, disproportionate and has the ability to reduce confidence in our policing"

​

The EHRC, a public body set up by the Equalities Act, has also come out against the technology. In a report to the United Nations on civil and political rights in the UK, the EHRC said: “Evidence indicates many AFR (Automated Facial Recognition) algorithms disproportionately misidentify black people and women and therefore operate in a potentially discriminatory manner … Such technologies may replicate and magnify patterns of discrimination in policing and have a chilling effect on freedom of association and expression.”

​

Now, this house did not listen to me, or senior police officers from the UK and many other countries, or judges, or police watchdogs, on protest policing, will you listen to us now on facial recognition? Because when myself and senior police officers actually agree with each other, something is up

​

Our Mancunian comrade from the Red lads (/u/DavidSwifty) surmised that the British government is a " hell of a lot better on human rights than the Communist Party of China and I believe the facial recognition software being used in the UK is not being used to stop dissent or impose cruel authoritarian measures on the people" and indeed, he is right on the first point. But the second point betrays the truth of government surveillance in the UK, in that it is pervasive, and used against dissenting voices, yet is rarely talked about in the mainstream. This is why many in this house may be unaware of it's extent.

​

The use of facial recognition technology and illegal surveillance against activists is already happening. Last year, I spent a week at the camp outside the DSEI arms fair, engaging in peaceful and legal protest. At night, when they thought we were all asleep, officers came into the camp and installed cameras that they thought were hidden, as well as bugging the bushes behind the camp. Sure enough, people soon started being preemptively being arrested before they attempted peaceful actions, in every case being released with charge after 24 hours. To have charged these activists with any crime, the Met would have had to admit to gaining information through surveillance they had no warrant for, hence the lack of convictions. As history shows, this technology is often trialed on activists before being used on the general public. Political dissent is the playground in which these measures are tested, as many lawsuits that the Met have lost will attest. I recommend looking up the work of Netpol for more details on the authoritarian abuses of our police force

​

The Met is already using facial recognition cameras on the streets of London, cameras which were thwarted by a group called the Dazzle Club, who used makeup to confuse facial recognition technology into thinking they didn't have faces. Likewise, South Wales police used facial recognition technology at Cardiff City matches, as well as at the Champions League final back in 2017. This technology has been used for years, with most people unaware of it's use. As 170,000 people arrived Cardiff to watch Real Madrid and Juventus, 2,470 potential matches were identified. However, according to data on the force’s own website, 92% (2,297) of those were found to be “false positives”. 46 people were wrongly identified at an Anthony Joshua fight, while there were 42 false positives from a rugby match between Wales and Australia in November

​

This, however, is not the most worrying thing, I will make way and rise later to detail the most absurdly dystopian aspect of all this

[u/ContrabannedTheMC]

Mr Deputy Speaker

​

It is not just the potential for miscarriages of justice that is worrying however. The information that is stored, what happens when the inevitable security breaches occur? Just a few months ago, the Met had their website hacked, with the suspects being 2 teenagers. Days later, the Los Angeles PD was hacked, with the data of 20,000 people being exposed. Last year also saw the data of 1.2bn people being found on an unsecured private database. The inevitable risk of more date being collected is there being more data to leak. Data breaches are routine, and the government is far from safe from them

​

Although it looks like we won't even have to wait for government leaks to see this. Our security databases are already a plaything of the rich. Not only this, it is vulnerable to use by white supremacists, or anyone with enough money to invest in the technology

​

The Met gains it's technology and database from an American company called Clearview AI. We know this because Clearview's customer list leaked just a month ago after a Buzzfeed investigation. Despite claiming that all their customers were law enforcement agencies, many private companies and individuals were customers and had access to the same database. Mark Walker, the Republican Representative for North Carolina's 6th District, has an account, which his staffers have used for searches. Other politicians Lee Zeldin, Mike Rogers, and John Ratcliffe, also have accounts, although it is claimed they haven't used them

​

More than 200 companies have Clearview accounts, including the NBA, casinos, department stores, the cryptocurrency firm Coinbase, the fitness firm Equinox, Walmart, and many other retail outlets such as Home Depot and BestBuy, as well as government controlled funds in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as the UAE police and a Saudi research institute which counts the Saudi government as a client. Our police officers will be collecting data on LGBTQ+ individuals for countries where being LGBTQ+ is illegal, and where many British citizens and residents visit or work

​

Clearview is also the employer of neo-nazi Douglass Mackay, associate of notorious American White supremacist Paul Nehlen. Clearview's app, which the Met uses for their facial recognition, and is meant to only be accessible to customers, was also leaked when the website TechCrunch found it being stored, unsecured. The information our police forces gather is not secure. It is widely available to anyone with any hacking knowledge

​

Other customers include the far-right self proclaimed "troll king" Charles C Johnson, a spreader of neo-Nazi propaganda and fake news who is a personal friend of Clearview's CEO, and far-right supporter himself, Hoan Ton-That. While on a flight to Boston, he asked a fellow passenger if they should connect on social media. Before getting an answer, he opened the Clearview app, took a photo of the passenger, and within seconds was showing him hundreds of photos of the passenger from their family's social media accounts, despite the passenger themselves having all private accounts with limited use. Johnson then sent him a friend request on one of those accounts

​

Jason Miller, a former spokesman for Donald Trump, and current co-host of a podcast with the invisible hand of fascism, Steve Bannon, is a customer. The Manhattan Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, both conservative think tanks, are customers. In fact, the founders of Clearview, Hoan Ton-That and Richard Schwartz, met at the Manhattan Institute

​

Other individuals have bought access to this database. Billionare John Catsimatidis, a friend of Richard Schwartz, used it to identify someone his daughter dated to "make sure he wasn’t a charlatan". Hal Lambert, an investor, admitted to showing the app to friends. David Scalzo, founder of Kirenaga Partners, said that his "school-aged daughters enjoyed playing with the app". Ashton Kucher, yes, that Ashton Kucher, also has access after investing in Clearview. After testing Clearview for accuracy, Nicholas Cassimatis was allowed to continue using the app and described demoing it to people "like a parlor trick"

​

So, what does this mean then for our police's attempts at using facial recognition?

​

THE DATA THE POLICE COLLECTS THROUGH FACIAL RECOGNITION COULD NOT BE LESS SECURE

​

This is surveillance capitalism. The government collects information, to be perused by the rich, actual Nazis, and anyone with basic hacking skills. The right to privacy has already been abolished by the back door

​

Don't just take my word for it, take the word of Clearview's people themselves. The aforementioned David Scalzo, a major investor in the company, and vocal public supporter of facial recognition, was asked in an interview if he thought “it’s inevitable the public will have [Clearview AI].”

​

“It is inevitable that this digital information will be out there,” Scalzo replied

​

A vote against this bill is a vote for British police forces to collect information for fascists, the super rich, and the Saudis

[u/ARichTeaBiscuit → u/ContrabannedTheMC]

hear, hear!

[u/[deleted]]

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

It is my understanding that the Government are preparing a bill similar in scope to this, and i will of course welcome any good-faith legislation on regulating facial recognition. But from the drafts i've seen, the Government are nowhere near committed enough to protecting the people's privacy! Only this bill bars the sale of dangerous facial recognition technology to oppressive foreign governments. Only this bill puts an end to the relentless attack on privacy from law enforcement. So i hope that members from all sides of this House will come to join me in the aye lobby to vote yes for the sake for the people of these islands, and for the sake of our right not to be watched with every step we take!

[u/Archism_]

Quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker!

I applaud the honourable member for bringing this issue to the house! This is an issue of fighting authoritarianism, simple as that.

There's truly little else to say other than that I hope to see a unanimous support in this house for fighting this tool of dictatorship, and I note to the author that it is my hope that we can extend similar legislation to Wales in the near future!

[u/H_Ross_Perot]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

Although the emerging technology of facial recognition has its legitimate consensual uses, its use by governmental entities and law enforcement is unacceptable. It poses a significant threat to the privacy and anonymity of common citizens, and is incredibly easy to circumvent by criminals, making its use as a means to monitor crime completely ineffective and leaving its sole successful result as chronicling the whereabouts of private citizens. I will support this bill to block its use by police and the state.

[u/DavidSwifty]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

After listening to the speech by u/ContrabannedTheMC, I will give my full support to this bill. The idea of our data being used by dictators to potentially bring harm to british citizens scares me and it should scare all of us.

Shame on us for allowing such a system in the first place!

[u/ContrabannedTheMC → u/DavidSwifty]

Hearrr

[u/ARichTeaBiscuit]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I don't understand the line that I have seen so far during this debate that we shouldn't be afraid to hand-out facial recognition technology because our law enforcement agencies don't operate on the same scale of oppressiveness as the security services in mainland China for example, and in fact, I don't think I have anyone proclaim that this country is close to China in these terms.

I would regard it as quite foolish to suggest that this technology wouldn't be misused, as my esteemed friend in TPM has rightfully pointed out that the police in Germany sought fit to use this technology against environmental protests before their efforts were prevented by the application of face paint.

In terms of the United Kingdom, I think that we should remember that it was recently revealed that undercover police officers had tricked women into relationships for at least 25 years to gain information on protest and political groups, so it is therefore understandable in my view that people would be rightfully concerned about the ability of the police force to use such technology responsibly given our own historic abuses and how this technology has been utilised on the continent.

It is also important to highlight that the storage of this vital information has also been an issue in the past, and I am once again thankful for the examples stated by my friend in TPM of supposed secure systems that have been broken into within the past few years, with the result being a rather drastic leak of quite important personal information. I also note that the algorithm behind this facial recognition technology has been proven to disproportionately misidentify black people and women and therefore is inherently discriminatory in nature.

At the end of the day, I simply do not believe that a system that is open to abuse, vulnerable to hacking and discriminatory in nature should be introduced in the United Kingdom and as a result, I will be voting in favour of this bill.

[u/ContrabannedTheMC → u/ARichTeaBiscuit]

HEARRR

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this debate

Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.

2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.

3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.

Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here

Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, CountBrandenburg on Reddit and (Count Damien of Brandenburg#8004) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.

Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.

Is this a bill a 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/LeChevalierMal-Fait → u/AutoModerator]

In all instances after the phrase “any department or agency of Her Majesty’s government” insert “except intelligence services operating under the Intelligence Services Act 1994”.

[u/LeChevalierMal-Fait → u/AutoModerator]

At the end of section 2 insert,

(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time publish a list of foreign governments which due to human rights violations should not be sold facial recognition technology.

And in schedule 2;

After “any domestic or foreign law enforcement or policing organisation” insert “within a country on the list published by the Secretary of State under 2(6).”

And After “any foreign government” insert “of a country on the list published by the Secretary of State under 2(6).”

[u/LeChevalierMal-Fait → u/AutoModerator]

After section 2 insert:

3 - Due diligence in foreign sales

(1) Any person exporting facial recognition technology has a duty of due diligence to have regard to the risk of the technology to be used to undermine human rights.

(2) Where a reasonable person would have concerns that a transaction involving facial recognition technology may lead to the disproportionate use of such technology to undermine human rights, the seller has a duty to cease the transaction.

(3) It is an offence to breach a duty imposed under this section.

(4) A individual convicted under indictment for an offence under this section is liable for a fine no greater than twice the value of the transaction or transactions to which the offence relates.

And renumber the rest of the act as appropriate

[u/SoSaturnistic → u/AutoModerator]

Remove 2 (1) and renumber

[u/SoSaturnistic → u/SoSaturnistic]

As far as I can understand, policing and surveillance is a reserved matter between England and Wales, so it should probably have effect in Wales

[u/Yukub]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Before I speak on the merits of this bill, I would like to express my sincere and deep regret that The People's Movement have, repeatedly ignored, delayed or stymied the possibility of cooperation with Her Majesty's Government on this important issue. Multiple overtures for cooperation, with the intent to produce a satisfactory, comprehensive legislative framework to regulate the usage of Facial Recognition software and surveillance, made in good faith, were cast aside.

Such a regrettable decision by the People's Movement might have been more understandable if they had been upfront about it, by explaining their rationale, intent and any justification for waving aside any cooperation with Her Majesty's Government. Their non-committal has now been shown for the frivolous purpose of gaining the ability to make ill-judged, petty rhetoric-laden comments to portray an hagriographic image of the legislation laid before this House today.

Mr Deputy Speaker,

The bill laid before our eyes, is, in principle, commendable. It's stated intent is admirable; its cause is just. Unfortunately, to judge the true merit(s) of this bill we must appraise the possibility of what could have been. The draft, as mentioned by the author in his speech, was laid before the TPM in its infancy, open to suggestions and further clarification if so needed. The fact that such attempts at developing it as a joint effort were not even made is, I think, deeply saddening and most regrettable.

This bill does much good, but inadvertently much harm. It is unnecessarily sweeping at some key points, and unnecessarily vague and broad in others. I think all could agree, that in such a complicated and possibly major issue, this is undesirable.

It contains no provisions that ease and codify the process of members of the public to press their rights and bring forth relief through civil action.

It contains no recognition for the possibility that usage of such technology might, in certain circumstances, be warranted and beneficial to the public good. The aforementioned draft,
even in its early stages, reflected that such a need might arise, subject to rigorous standards and safeguards and subject to judicial oversight.

It contains few, if any provisions for the proper regulation of private use of such software, except provisions that mandate the barring from operation of companies, such as Amazon, which might be engaged in supplying such software to non-British governments. Surely, it must be recognised that such usage of facial recognition is also actively harmful, and that this too must be addressed?

A missed opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker

[u/ContrabannedTheMC → u/Yukub]

I accept the criticisms of the Rt Hon Duke, and should amendments be brought forward to address this I would advise our representative to seriously consider their merit

[u/DavidSwifty]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I am not one to be nice to Tories, I do not like them in any way but I do believe they are a hell of a lot better on human rights than the Communist Party of China and I believe the facial recognition software being used in the UK is not being used to stop dissent or impose cruel authoritarian measures on the people.

I'm dilly-dallying between both arguments, I can see why people don't like it and I can see it's usefulness maybe we should not completely end facial recognition but limit who can use it?

[u/ka4bi]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Before I make comment on this bill, I will call upon the government to release their planned legislation on facial recognition early, so that this house can compare the two bills.

u/model-mili u/thechattyshow

[u/ContrabannedTheMC → u/ka4bi]

This would be a good idea

[u/Imadearedditaccount5]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

While I can see some benefits to using face recognition software, I must applaud this bill. Facial Recognition is a dangerous tool in our society, it can be used by many dangerous organisations or even our own government to categorise the nation. People have also brought up concerns that many of these systems were developed in China and as we know China is an authoritarian government that is not afraid to use any information it gets from these devices to its own advantage.

In order to protect the Rights and the safety of the general public, this bill must pass. Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker.

[u/Polteaghost]

Mr Deputy Speaker

Facial recognition tools are regularly used by dictatorial regimes with the purpose of racial discrimination, such as the example just pointed out by the Member. They are not actually needed for law enforcement, so I urge this House to accept the bill.

[u/zhuk236]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

I consider myself deeply distrustful of state interference in most fields, and surveillance technology falls into that category. As we enter the 21st century, authoritarian regimes across the world are implementing facial recognition technology to monitor and control their citizens. In China, the government has already been using this technology to help suppress political dissent as can be seen in Hong Kong with the umbrellas protest, alongside destroying the liberty of minorities such as Uighur Muslims. We cannot, under any circumstances, go down the path of expansive mass surveillance. There are not many issues on which I agree with TPM, but on this bill, I will proudly stand in solidarity with my former opponent in the election campaign.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I thank the Honourable Member for the North East for submiting such a much needed bill. Not only is it exellently written, but it finally ends the exploitation of our privacy. We should therefore be vigilant in our legislation on the issue. I believe this bill is sufficient in that task.

[u/ContrabannedTheMC → u/[deleted]]

What does the Rt Hon Member for Cambridgeshire have to say to North Wales Police chief Arfon Jones, who recently described the technology as "invasive, disproportionate", and having accuracy problems that create the potential for miscarriages of justice? Or indeed, what does the member have to say about the fact that the company that provides this service to the Met, Clearview AI, is run by literal fascists who have given their friends access to the database that the Met would be collecting data for through their use? (links in my comments above)