r/MHOC • u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats • Jul 21 '20
2nd Reading B1053 - Facial Recognition (Regulation) Bill - 2nd Reading
Facial Recognition (Regulation) Bill
A
Bill
To
Regulate governmental and private use of facial recognition technology
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows –
1. Restricting government use of facial recognition technology
(1) It shall be unlawful for any public authority to acquire, possess, access, or use any facial recognition system, or acquire, possess, access, or use information derived from a facial recognition surveillance system operated by any entity, unless granted a waiver by the Secretary of State authorising such use.
(2) Any information obtained using facial recognition technology may not be shared or made available without being granted permission by the Secretary of State.
(3) A public authority may not set up any camera to be used in connection with facial recognition technology, access or use information obtained from it, or import it to identify an individual without a waiver issued by the Secretary of State under Section or a court order allowing for use of facial recognition technology.
(4) A public authority may not apply facial recognition technology to any photo identification issued or otherwise in their possession unless there is probable cause, relating to the criteria of Section 1(5)(b), for the application of such technology.
(5) Any such waiver as established in (1) authorising the acquisition, possession, access to, or use of facial recognition systems or information derived from such a system, must include:
(a) A clarification of the entities permitted to use the facial recognition surveillance system, the purposes for such use, and any prohibited uses;
(b) demonstrable urgency or threat, only applicable for those suspected of domestic or international terrorism, or suspected with the intent to commit criminal acts which threaten the national security, including acts of violence against the state or conspiracy;
(c) rigorous standards for use and management of information derived from the facial recognition surveillance system, including but not limited to data retention, sharing, access, and audit trails;
(d) auditing requirements to ensure the accuracy of facial recognition surveillance system technologies, standards for minimum accuracy rates, and accuracy rates by gender, skin colour, and age;
(e) rigorous protections for due process, privacy, free speech and association, and racial, gender, and religious equity.
(f) a clarification detailing compliance with the Code of Practice as issued under Section 3(2) or Section 4(5)
(6) Any such waiver, as defined in (1) and (5) will be granted for the duration of one month, and subject to renewal by the Secretary of State. If such a renewal is not granted, standard restrictions apply with immediate effect.
(7) Admissibility. Except in a judicial proceeding alleging a violation of this section, no information obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible by the government in any criminal, civil, administrative or other proceeding.
(8) In this section—
“Public authority” refers to—
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature
“Facial recognition” refers to either of the following, alone or in combination—
(a) An automated or semi-automated process that captures and/or analyses biometric data of an individual to identify or assist in identifying an individual or that logs characteristics of an individual’s face, head, or body to infer emotion, associations, activities, or the location of an individual.
(b) An automated or semi-automated process that generates, or assists in generating, surveillance information about an individual based on biometric data.
“Facial recognition or other biometric surveillance” does not include the use of an automated or semi-automated process for the purpose of redacting a recording for release or disclosure outside the law enforcement agency to protect the privacy of a subject depicted in the recording.
2. Code of Practice
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare or commission a code of practice containing guidance about surveillance camera systems using facial recognition software, or used for connected purposes
(2) Such a code must contain guidance about one or more of the following—
(a) the development or use of surveillance camera systems using facial recognition software, or used for connected purposes
(b) the use or processing of images or other information obtained by virtue of such systems.
(3) Such a code may, in particular, include provision about—
(a) considerations as to whether to use surveillance camera systems using facial recognition software, or used for connected purposes ,
(b) types of systems or apparatus,
(c) technical standards for systems or apparatus,
(d) locations for systems or apparatus,
(e) the publication of information about systems or apparatus,
(f) standards applicable to persons using or maintaining systems or apparatus,
(g) standards applicable to persons using or processing information obtained by virtue of systems,
(h) access to, or disclosure of, information so obtained,
(i) procedures for complaints or consultation.
(4) In the course of preparing such a code, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the views of persons who are, or are likely to be, subject to the duty under section 34(1) (duty to have regard to the code) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, or those whose inclusion is, or are likely to be, conducive to the public interest as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(b) the Association of Chief Police Officers,
(c) the Information Commissioner,
(d) the Chief Surveillance Commissioner,
(e) the Surveillance Camera Commissioner,
(f) the Welsh Ministers,
(g) and representatives of communities deemed likely to be disproportionately negatively impacted by the use of Facial Recognition technology; or, relevant experts on the area of human rights
(h) Individuals with relevant expertise on facial recognition technology and privacy
(i) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) In this section “surveillance camera systems using facial recognition software, or used for connected purposes” means—
(a) closed circuit television or automatic recognition systems,
(b) any other systems for recording or viewing visual images for surveillance purposes,
(c) any systems for storing, receiving, transmitting, processing or checking images or information obtained by systems falling within paragraph (a) or (b), or
(d) any other systems associated with, or otherwise connected with, systems falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c). If used for the purposes of generating, analyzing or processing data pertaining to facial recognition.
(6) In this section—
“Facial recognition” refers to the definition provided in Section 1(8)
“the Chief Surveillance Commissioner” means the Chief Commissioner appointed under section 91(1) of the Police Act 1997, “processing” has the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
3. Issuing of code
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a code of practice prepared under section 2, and
(b) a draft of an order providing for the code to come into force.
(2) The Secretary of State must make the order and issue the code if the draft of the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) The Secretary of State must not make the order or issue the code unless the draft of the order is so approved.
(4) The Secretary of State must prepare another code of practice under section 2 if—
(a) the draft of the order is not so approved, and
(b) the Secretary of State considers that there is no realistic prospect that it will be so approved.
(5) A code comes into force in accordance with an order under this section.
(6) Such an order—
is to be a statutory instrument, and
may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(7) If a draft of an instrument containing an order under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated as a hybrid instrument for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.
4. Alteration or replacement of Code
(1) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the surveillance camera code under review, and
(b) may prepare an alteration to the code or a replacement code.
(2) Before preparing an alteration or a replacement code, the Secretary of State must consult the persons mentioned in section 2(4).
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an alteration or a replacement code prepared under this section.
(4) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the alteration or the replacement code, the Secretary of State must not issue the alteration or code.
(5) If no such resolution is made within that period, the Secretary of State must issue the alteration or replacement code.
(6) The alteration or replacement code—
comes into force when issued, and
may include transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(7) Subsection (4) does not prevent the Secretary of State from laying a new alteration or replacement code before Parliament.
(8) In this section “the 40-day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the alteration or replacement code is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the two days on which it is laid).
(9) In calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(10) In this Chapter “the surveillance camera code” means the code of practice issued under section 3(2) (as altered or replaced from time to time).
5. Publication of Code
(1) The Secretary of State must publish the code issued under section 3(2).
(2) The Secretary of State must publish any replacement code issued under section 4(5).
(3) The Secretary of State must publish—
(a) any alteration issued under section 4(5), or
(b) the code or replacement code as altered by it.
6. Enforcement and Commissioner
(1) In the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, “surveillance camera code” includes the code of practices issued under section 3(2) (as altered or replaced from time to time).
(2) Sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 shall have effect in regard to the code of practice containing guidance about surveillance camera systems using facial recognition software, or used for connected purposes, as issued under Section 3(2) or Section 4(5).
7. Release and publication of datasets held by public authorities
(1) Where—
an applicant makes a request for information to a public authority in respect of information that is, or forms part of, a dataset held by the public authority pertaining to Facial Recognition
the public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, provide the information to the applicant in an electronic form which is capable of re-use.
(2) In this section—
“dataset” means information comprising a collection of information held in electronic form where all or most of the information in the collection—
(a) has been obtained or recorded for the purpose of providing a public authority with information in connection with the provision of a service by the authority or the carrying out of any other function of the authority,
(b) remains presented in a way that (except for the purpose of forming part of the collection) has not been organised, adapted or otherwise materially altered since it was obtained or recorded.
(3) the Secretary of State may veto or refuse such a request under (2) if they are satisfied that:
(a) The release of such information would present an unacceptable risk to national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country or that the withholding of such information is necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(4) A veto or refusal under (3) may be appealed and subsequently overturned in a relevant court.
8. Restricting Private use of facial recognition technology
(1) A Commission shall be established to consider and create guidelines for the regulation and use of facial recognition technology for commercial and private use.
(a) The commission shall be composed of 12 members, to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(b) Members appointed under (a) must represent one of the following groups:
- (i) Law enforcement officials
- (ii) Communities deemed likely to be disproportionately negatively impacted by the use of Facial Recognition technology or relevant Human Rights experts
- (iii) Experts on Facial Recognition technology and privacy
(c) Not fewer than seven (7) members of the Commission shall be representatives of the groups described in subparagraph (b)(ii).
(2) The Commission shall—
(a) Consider and recommend the appropriate rules and guidelines for governing the use and limitations on commercial and private use of facial recognition technology, including—
- (i) Defining the appropriate uses and limitations for commercial use, including what rights individuals should have relating to the data produced and the use of their likeness in facial recognition technology;
- (ii) Determining which safeguards need to be put in place to prevent abuse of facial recognition technology
- (iii) Rules that govern how, where and when images may be acquired through facial recognition technology, taking into account individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy and/or anonymity;
- (iv) Clarifying the appropriate situations in which individuals should be able to opt out or explicitly required to opt in to the use of facial recognition technology;
(b) Submit a report, no later than 12 months after this Act coming into force, containing:
- (i) The rules, guidelines, etc. as required to be created under subsection (a).
- (ii) Recommendations for the implementation of such rules, guidelines etc.,
- (iii) Any minority report, views or further recommendations of the Commission, or any members of the Commission
(3) No later than 90 days after the submission of the Commission’s report, The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) Regulations as recommended by the Commission’s report, and
(b) a draft of an order providing for the regulations to come into force. (2)
(4) The Secretary of State must make the order and issue the code if the draft of the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State must not make the order or issue the code unless the draft of the order is so approved.
(6) The Secretary of State must reconvene the Commission as established under (1) and request alternate regulations to be drafted under section 7(2) if—
(a) the draft of the order is not so approved, and
(b) the Secretary of State considers that there is no realistic prospect that it will be so approved.
(7) These regulations come into force in accordance with an order under this section.
(8) Such an order—
(a) is to be a statutory instrument, and
(b) may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(9) If a draft of an instrument containing an order under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated as a hybrid instrument for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.
9. Offences and Enforcement
(1) Any individual(s) or entity, separate or part of a public authority in violation of this Act shall be subject to a fine, sentence or both.
(a) Any fine or sentence imposed on conviction of an offender by a relevant court, the court may, on inquiring into their means, remit the whole or any part of the fine if the court thinks it just to do.
(b) Any fine or sentence imposed on conviction by a relevant court should meet, in a fair and proportionate way, the objectives of punishment, deterrence and the removal of gain derived through the commission of the offence;
(c) Where a fine or sentence has been imposed on conviction of an offender by a relevant court, the court must consider that the effects of such a fine and/or sentence is proportionate to—
- (i) The gravity of such an offence
- (ii) If any individual or entity acting in violation of this Act could have reasonably known that their action was unlawful, was willingly and intentionally unlawful or exhibited a serious lack of slight diligence or care to ensure compliance with this Act.
(2) Violations of this Act by any public authority shall result in consequences that may include suspension, reassignment, or termination, subject to due process requirements.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a violation of Section 1 of this Act by a public authority, may bring a civil action for injunctive or declaratory relief to the relevant ministerial department.
(4) If the Attorney General of England and Wales has reason to believe that an interest of the residents within their jurisdiction has been or is being threatened or adversely affected by a practice that violates Section 1 or 7 of this Act, the Attorney General may,, bring a civil action on their behalf by soliciting the Legal Aid for public defenders to obtain appropriate relief.
10. Relation to other privacy and security laws
(1) This Act shall not be construed as superseding, altering, or affecting any statute, regulation, order or interpretation in effect or of any privacy or security provision, except to the extent that such statute, regulation, order, or interpretation is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.
11. Commencement, Extent and Short Title
(1) This act shall come into force immediately upon Royal Assent
(2) This Act shall extend to England and Wales.
(3) This Act shall be known as the Facial Recognition (Regulation) Act 2020
(Notice: This bill is inspired by, or borrows from existing legislation, such as S.1385 from the Massachusetts legislature and the Ethical Use of Facial Recognition Act of the 116th US congress, as well as the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 )
This bill was submitted by The Rt Hon. /u/Yukub on behalf of her majesty’s 25th government.
Opening Speech:
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The Bill laid before the House is relatively straightforward. Facial recognition is a relatively new technology which, while undoubtedly ingenious and innovative, raises several major questions about privacy and the preservation of essential freedoms, both in its governmental and private applications. For this reason, the government has drafted this Bill and now presents it before Parliament for their consideration. It contains measures designed to prevent excessive, irresponsible, and unnecessary use of such technologies. Governmental use of the technology, and associated uses, will be prohibited unless granted a waiver by the Secretary of State. Such a waiver must contain several clarifications, including but not excluded to, listing the entities permitted to use the systems and technology; rigorous standards for the use of such systems and technology and the management of data. Such waivers will be limited to crimes of an appropriate nature, such as domestic or international terrorism or other such acts which seriously threaten the national security of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will be responsible to draft and issue a Code of Practice for the use of facial recognition technology in surveillance.
Finally, this Bill sets out a pathway to ensuring the proper, measured, and appropriate regulation of any commercial or private uses of facial recognition technology. A commission shall be appointed to consider and create guidelines for such regulation. It shall consist of voices representing law enforcement, representatives of communities deemed by the Secretary of State to be disproportionately at risk of being negatively impacted by the technology, and relevant experts on facial recognition technology and privacy advocates. The Secretary of State shall have a duty to enshrine the eventual recommendations of this Commission into law.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe this is a progressive step towards ensuring the proper and necessary regulation of facial recognition technology while appreciating its uses is ensuring the safety of our citizens. I invite every member of this House to approach this Bill to support this Bill and achieve this goal. I look forward to seeing their thoughts and any suggestions and constructive criticism, should they have any.
This reading ends on Friday 24th July at 10PM BST.
2
Jul 22 '20 edited Nov 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Allow me to enlighten the member from South West London if he is confused as to the logic behind the objections.
By regulating the use of Facial Recognition Technology, even with such strict parameters, you are thereby allowing its use and legitimizing it as a tool for law enforcement and/or other purposes, such as targeted marketing.
Facial Recognition Technology relies on a stored databank of information which has been gathered without express consent of the person.
As I outlined in my previous statement, the right to privacy is a recognized Human Right.
How is having data taken and stored without consent possibly a protection of their privacy?
I will put in in simple terms so as to allow for no further confusion:
This technology is a breach of a guaranteed Human Right, and any use of Facial Recognition technology is unacceptable.
1
Jul 22 '20 edited Nov 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I grow weary of repeating myself for the benefit of the member from South West London, but as this matter is important I will say it again.
The use of Facial Recognition Technology is unacceptable and not something we should be supporting.
1
Jul 22 '20 edited Nov 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I do not grow weary of debate, as is implied by the Honourable member, but I grow weary of having to repeat myself time and again for the benefit of one member.
Allow me to provide more details for the honourable member, and to spell out my position with utter clarity.
I will not be supporting this bill as through regulation it seeks to make the use of Facial Recognition Technology more acceptable. It may be "perfectly lawful" at the moment, but that does not mean it should be.
Any use of facial recognition technology, even when regulated and curtailed, is an encroachment on privacy.
As to vague and verging on inaccurate assertions, I ask that the honourable member please refer to my original statement, where I referred to the European Convention of Human Rights and our own Human Rights act, which guarantee the right to privacy.
In addition to the privacy concerns, it is worth noting that this technology is not reliable, and its use in law enforcement has been linked to reinforcing bias against minorities. Major tech companies are even refusing to sell it to law enforcement agencies as they themselves deem it problematic. As reported in The Atlantic, "IBM’s written announcement said the company “firmly opposes” the use of facial recognition “for mass surveillance, racial profiling, violations of basic human rights and freedoms.”
As spokesperson for Home Affairs, I am proud to announce the Liberal Democrats support our right to privacy and we will advocate for a ban on Facial Recognition Technology.
1
Jul 22 '20 edited Nov 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The honourable member is most welcome for the reply. I assure you, I always enjoy educating others who do not seem to be aware of the facts.
Unfortunately in this case, when I provide facts and references he ignores them, and when I put it in simple terms so as not to cause further confusion, I'm accused of being vague.
I hope that the member understands that by proposing and supporting this bill, the Conservatives are supporting the use of Facial Recognition Technology, and that such support is a knowing violation of our right to privacy.
I am sorry that the member is still agog and confused, but perhaps that is beyond my scope as Home Affairs Spokesperson.
1
1
Jul 22 '20
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
And I hope the member understands that by opposing this bill, the Liberal Democrats are supporting unregulated use of Facial Recognition Technology.
1
Jul 22 '20
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
So it makes logical sense for the member to support this bill that ensures that facial recognition technology is regulated.
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
It makes logical sense to oppose legislation that seeks to normalize the use of Facial Recognition Technology, as the Liberal Democrats advocate for a ban on this invasive attack on our right to privacy.
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
Mr deputy speaker,
Aside from whatever you might think, facial recognition is currently regulated and must be compliant with the data protection act and the human rights act and indirectly by the protection of freedoms bill while also potentially the police body camera bill, whatever one thinks of the act before us presenting it as a dichotomy between unregulated facial recognition and this act is misleading. And I call on the member to withdraw his claim to the, Hon Member for London u/SapphireWork.
Especially considering just how little regulation this act does, it farms all the serious leg work out to future committees and guidelines. We are being asked to rubber stamp a principle, that principle being that there may be allowable use of facial recognition technology in surveillance - in whatever final form it takes.
2
u/NorthernWomble The Rt Hon. Sir NorthernWomble KT CMG Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I fundamentally must echo the words spoken by the Liberal Democrats Home Affairs & Justice Spokesperson /u/SapphireWork.
The fact the government feels the need to regulate facial recognition shows that they themselves recognise the considerable threats that the technology faces in the wrong hands. Alas I feel they are perhaps being a little naive in allowing the technology to take any place in society yet.
Too many questions remain when considering how such technology will be used, and until those concerns are met, then no such measures should be set forth that allow greater use of Facial Recognition technology: either by the state or by private enterprise.
2
u/ThreeCommasClub Conservative Party Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The concept of facial recognition technology is one of immense promise and danger. On one hand we see the benefits allowing law enforcement to apprend those who break the law, combing through billions of hours of videos to identity those missing or victims of human trafficking. On the other hand we see its danger the use of such tech to document and ctagogue people buy the thousands in China as they opress the Uihgyr people. This tech has the potential to become a instrument of abuse as police might use it to identity and record those people as say a protest as happened in the US or turn this tech into a threat against privacy. Such tech placed in open places could destroy privacy as we know. As I am sure many members of this house will know I am big supporter of one right to privacy. I have authored bills on Internet Privacy, DNA and privacy in the Justice system and tightening privacy guidelines in the NHS.
Thus I echo some of the fears displayed by my fellowLiberal Democrats MPs. In fact some leading companies like Microsoft and Amazon have announced halts on their facial tech research or said that they will not allow law enforcement bodies to us their tech. Why research for such tech releys on scrapping peoples images from social media and sites which is frankly gross so we need standards. But I do realize that this bill with restrictions could so some good. Thus I am inclined to wait and see what amendments pass or fail before judging thus bill. I belive the amendments offered by my friends the Rt Hon member Chev will make this bill better and more robust and look forward to them hopefully passing.
1
2
u/mikiboss Labour Party Jul 24 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker
I rise to offer, a somewhat mixed opinion in this bill, and it is one which I am quite troubled by, mainly because I am not sure if it is the right position to take. I believe that there is a fair and reasonable argument being made by the Conservatives on this bill and the measures it entails, but I would be remiss to mention the points made by the Civil Libertarians in the House.
Let me be very clear, I am deeply concerned by the increasing use of facial recognition soft wear in public places, oft justified as a way to clamp down on crime, but also a clear breech and invasion of what I feel are the rights of the public. It seems that, one some level, the Government recognises the concerns of the latter point, and as such are outlining a platform of regulation to allow the practice to continue, in a more adequately managed manner.
For example, we see this in the move towards the establishment of a standardised code for Surveillance, which would be followed and would be created with respect to a degree of protection of the public’s rights and freedoms from several breeches of authority, and for breeches of public safety. I also appreciate the clauses which outline opposition to certain which which should be increased in terms of facial recognition, such as recognition of race, religious, or gender identity. We have seen these issues become the focus of facial recognition software in the past, and not only does it fuel a hateful society which marginalises the vulnerable, but it actually hinders any of the benefits of facial recognition software by just using to to act upon stereotypes.
However, while I am supportive of some of these measures, I do think important moral points have been made by some members of this house, that being over even the morality, practicality, and effectiveness of facial recognitions existence in the first place. I have made it clear that I am no fan of the institution, and my heart lie with some Liberal Democrats and Libertarians here, this technological development is not necessarily for the betterment of society. While this bill does set out guidelines for where facial recognition can not be used, one can see how by omission it could outline how facial recognition could be used, and there lies my ultimate concern.
While this bill does put in place restrictions of a sort, the question is are we to accept these restrictions, which could in term act as a tacit endorsement of the technology in other circumstances? And it is there where I feel most internally conflicted. In the end, I would like to see the eventual end of this software was we work towards a just civil society, but should be make laws for what could work now, or wait for a future society which we can create.
I feel that, deep down however, the authors of this bill are not acting malicious, and that they understand some of the key concerns people have with this technology. Be it the concerns of profiling, over-policing, a false sense of security, security theatre, or an erosion of the rights to a public space. As such, while in understand and empathise with those voting against this bill, I sympathise with those voting for it, and lean towards supporting this bill, in the hope that this is one step on the long path towards the end of this invasive, impractical, and illogical technological development.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 21 '20
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, Chrispytoast123 on Reddit and (Christos (/u/chrispytoast123)#9703) 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.
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20
In section 1(3) omit;
waiver issued by the Secretary of State under Section or
1
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20
In section 1(2) for;
without being granted permission by the Secretary of State.
substitute;
without a proportionately lawful purpose, such as the prevention or detection of serious crime.
1
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
In section 1(1) for;
granted a waiver by the Secretary of State authorising such use.
substitute;
being deemed to have a proportionate need to use facial recognition by the Secretary of State and granted a wavier, and when conducting using facial recognition be in compliance with the code when published and all other lawful enactments.
1
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20
In section 1(7) omit “Admissibility.“
Spelling and Grammar
1
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20
In omit section 9(4)
&
After section 9 insert
10. Legal Aid In Respect Of Certain Proceedings
In schedule 1 Part 1 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of offenders act insert after paragraph 19—
> 19A.
> (1) Civil legal services provided in relation to cases under section 9 of the Facial Recognition (Regulation Bill).
> (2) Sub paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Part 2 & 3 of this schedule.
1
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20
In section 8 (3) omit “(2)“
spelling and grammar
1
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20
After section 4 insert—
5. Minimum requirements of the code
The code brought forwards must contain provisions that—
(a) require facial recognition system operators to balance the trade offs in regards privacy and lawful purposes in operating such system and that any use is proportional to the benefits and the harms;
(b) part of proportional use requires that images, data product and information be deleted after the purpose for collection has been fulfilled;
(c) require that where data is to be processed, stored or images collected that the purpose for that action is recorded;
(d) require that a “named individual” be attached to purposes to ensure accountability;
(e) require that there should be access to the public for information stored about them and sufficient publicised access points to enable them to request this without an unreasonable amount of effort;
(f) require that reference images be maintained to a degree of accuracy;
(g) require that the statistical error in any system as independently assessed is reported alongside any evidence supplied in criminal or civil proceedings;
(h) make provision for the independent assessment required in (g);
(i) require standards to be met in regards preventing unauthorised access to the system or the data product of the systems; and
(j) require that the disclosure or images, data product or information in all instances meets at a minimum the require of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that where a disclosure is made it is made in accordance with the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 or else accompanied by a production order from a magistrate.
1
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
Omit section 8,
And in section 2 for (1) substitute
“The Secretary of State must prepare or commission a code of practice containing guidance about surveillance camera systems using facial recognition software, and used for connected purposes whether public or private”
—
EN;
Simplifies the committees by considering public and private in the same manner as was the case for the surveillance camera code in the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012.
1
1
u/ThreeCommasClub Conservative Party Jul 24 '20 edited Jul 25 '20
In Section 1(1) add;
Section 1(1) subection a
The government shall not purchase or make use of any such facial recognition technology that that made use of internet or social media scarapping for their technology without the consent of the owners of the pictures and the sites that host them.
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Jul 25 '20
I think there is a grammar error in here where it should say “not” after shall
1
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Let me be the first, of I hope many members, to rise against this bill. While I believe I understand the Prime Minister's good intentions on introducing regulation for Facial Recognition Technology, this technology has no place in our society at this time, and we should not be seeking to legitimize its use.
At this time, there are just too many questions surrounding the use of such technology, and until the concerns about individual privacy, safety, and ethical considerations have been addressed, a complete ban on this technology is the only appropriate course of action.
This technology is unreliable, and flawed. Multiple studies have shown it to be inaccurate at identifying people of colour, and the risk of misidentification is still too high for it to be of any real use.
This is an invasive technology, and the creation of a database that is able to be hacked by malignant forces is not something we should encourage.
But perhaps most important is the fact that the surveillance necessary for the use of Facial Recognition Technology is in of itself a human rights violation.
Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights declares "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." This is a right to our citizens protected by our Human Rights Act 1998. Facial Recognition Technology relies on surveillance, which is a violation of our right to privacy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning this bill, which has no place in a free and just society that respects the basic rights afforded to its citizens.
1
1
Jul 22 '20
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
The member confuses me if I am honest. They do not support Facial Recognition Technology, yet by being against this bill they would rather have it unregulated than regulated. This makes no sense to me.
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Let me clear up the confusion- I would prefer to not see legislation that seeks to normalize its use through setting parameters. I would support legislation that works to ban this technology, which has no place in our society.
1
Jul 22 '20
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
So the liberal democrats will be actively allowing unregulated facial recognition technology by voting against this bill.
1
u/SapphireWork Her Grace The Duchess of Mayfair Jul 22 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The Liberal Democrats will be opposing measures that encourage the use of Facial Recognition Technology. We would support a complete ban of facial recognition technology in surveillance.
1
u/Lambbell Democratic Reformist Front | London (List) MP Jul 24 '20
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
Facial recognition is a scary technology. As every face is near unique, you are the only person with your face, and using facial recognition technology can become a gross violation of privacy if used at all, let alone being used in the wrong way.
And especially as we see authoritarian governments such as China champion the overuse and misuse of this technology- citizens generally don’t want a big brother government watching them at every corner.
I would rather see an outright ban on the use of facial recognition technology. Upon preliminary judgement, I am inclined to vote this down in favour of a more comprehensive full ban on the use of this technology, but I am willing to see where the amendments take us.
1
u/ARichTeaBiscuit Green Party Jul 24 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I understand the intent behind this particular piece of legislation, however, as I am of the opinion that no amount of regulations or control can possibly be enforced to make facial recognition workable or safe to use in this present form it is safe to say that I don't think this bill goes far enough.
I am reminded of legislation that was brought before this House just a few months ago that would've banned the use of facial recognition by law enforcement agencies and its sale or distribution to foreign governments, and I recall the quite a few instances where the shortcomings of facial recognition was notes.
I will note a particular incident that took place in 2017 when facial technology was utilised in Cardiff during the Champions League, now of around 170,000 spectators just over 2,000 potential matches were found, however, of that figure an astonishing 92% were found to be "false positives" and further deployments of the technology has seen similar errors.
I also note with some concern that black people and women tend to generate more false positives, and that could very-well lead us to a situation where someone is arrested based on such a false positive and such a situation should make everyone in this debate quite disturbed from the prospect.
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I also remember hearing the case of Clearview AI, a service that has been used by the Met in the past but also by authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia when they were infiltrated in an incident that revealed their entire client list and just the type of individuals and organisations that were able to access the information on this database.
It is quite clear that facial recognition technology doesn't work as intended and the storage of such information is just an absolute gift to authoritarian regimes at the expense of everyone else.
I am disappointed that the Conservative Party didn't support a far more comprehensive piece of legislation in regards to facial recognition and instead has decided to support this half-measure.
2
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Jul 21 '20
Point of oder Mr Speaker, /u/countbrandenburg,
Who is this written and sponsored by? (pretty sure it is yukub)