Mobile fingerprint scanners stoke privacy concerns
Police in Britain can now conduct identity checks on the street using mobile fingerprint scanners. The scheme was introduced without parliamentary debate, and could be used to target undocumented migrants.
A total of 250 handheld scanners have been handed to West Yorkshire Police officers, who will use the devices to examine people’s fingerprints against biometric criminal and immigration databases. The force, which is working alongside the Home Office to trial the system, began using the scanners last weekend. Civil liberties campaigners have sharply criticised the scheme, warning it is highly intrusive and could be used for racial profiling and to uncover undocumented migrants. But the Home Office says it will help frontline officers identify people rapidly, saving time and money.
The government department says the new technology will enable police to rapidly distinguish “a person of interest” who withholds their name, and figure out the identities of people who are experiencing medical emergencies. A special app for smartphones will allow police to compare fingerprints to criminal and immigration records by connecting to live databases via the government’s Biometric Service Gateway. The app has been issued to a total of 5,500 officers working for West Yorkshire Police. Data accessed from the Biometric Services Gateway will remain secure, the Home Office claims, because fingerprints must be deleted from the scanners once they’ve been checked. Some 21 forces across the UK are expected to use the system by the close of 2018.
Speaking to the Home Office on Friday, I asked a number of questions concerning the new scheme. I inquired about the evidence that is required to stop and scan a person, what would happen if a member of the public refuses to have their fingerprint scanned, and whether the technology would be used to single out undocumented migrants. I also asked what safeguards are in place to ensure that only definitive suspects are scanned, whether the scanning threatens people’s right to privacy, whether the technology is vulnerable to malware or hacking, and why the scheme is being trialed in the absence of public or parliamentary debate.
A spokesman for the Home Office declined to answer my questions initially. He then stipulated that no new powers had been given to law enforcement officers, stressing that current police powers had simply been given “a tech upgrade”. When pressed on why there was no public consultation or parliamentary debate prior to the introduction of the trial, he said the Home Office had worked with media outlets to ensure the new system was well understood by the public. Asked for a second time about the technology’s capacity to erode privacy rights as well as its potential vulnerability to hacking, he suggested such questions were irrelevant. And when probed on what safeguards were in place to ensure the technology was only used when required, he declined to answer.
Emma Norton, a legal officer based at human rights group Liberty, described the practice of using mobile fingerprint scanners as “breathtakingly invasive”. “There is no discussion of consent. Or of the importance of legal advice before people should be asked to hand over this kind of information about themselves. Or what may happen if someone declines a request,” she wrote in a blog post on Liberty’s website.
“Or of what will be done with it — including the fact that it will be shared with the Home Office to target undocumented migrants. What about vulnerable people? What about children and young people? What about people being targeted for illegitimate reasons, like the colour of their skin?”
Director of Big Brother Watch, Silkie Carlo, was also dubious of the new scheme. “The growth of border-style security on our streets is alarming,” she said. “That police are now stopping and scanning people’s fingerprints to check their immigration status is nothing less than the modern equivalent of being asked to show your papers.”
West Yorkshire Police Assistant Chief Constable, Andy Battle, called the mobile scanners a “milestone” in the force’s “technological ambitions”. “From an operational perspective, they quickly open investigative leads into serious crimes and can often reveal the associates of an otherwise unknown victim,” he said.
“Likewise, they can immediately identify suspects who attempt to give false details and will prompt people to be more forthcoming in the first place.”
Mobile fingerprint scanners form part of a broader biometric programme run by the Home Office, which is used by multiple government agencies, including law enforcement, immigration, and citizenship services. An example of one such technology is facial recognition scanners. Facial recognition technology uses biometric software to carefully construct maps of people’s unique facial contours. These can then be compared to images stored elsewhere. Like mobile fingerprint scanners, facial recognition technology was quietly introduced to Britain in the absence of public and parliamentary debate. Initially it was trialled at festivals and football games. But its creeping expansion was amplified last August, after plans were announced to invest £5m in facial recognition software for use by British law enforcement officers.
The Home Office’s approach to biometrics, in general, has attracted criticism. The government’s long-delayed biometrics strategy, which was scheduled for release in 2012, is yet to materialise. On February 6, during a heated evidence session with MPs, Home Office minister Susan Williams said it would finally be published in June. She claimed a need to lessen its scope had caused the 6-year delay. While mobile fingerprint scanning may be effective in curbing police expenditure, increasing efficiency and the uncovering of new investigative leads, serious concerns remain over the Orwellian nature of such privacy-invading technology.
The Home Office has failed to clarify if safeguards will be introduced to ensure that police only use the scanners when it is ethical and in the interest of justice to do so. Disproportionate or improper use of this technology could result in a multitude of unsavoury practices such as subtle discrimination against ethnic minorities, harsh treatment of undocumented migrants, and unwarranted privacy breaches. The embrace of new technology and prudent spending are desirable in any field, including that of law enforcement. But if such measures are taken at the expense of citizens’ human rights, civil society will inevitably raise alarm.
This article was originally published on Feb 17 2018.
