back to article Breaking news: BBC FINALLY spots millions of mugshots on cop database

The BBC's Newsnight team lurched into action last night by "revealing" that "up to 18 million" mugshots of Brits were being stored on a huge police database without proper regulatory oversight. Setting aside the fact that we already knew back in December that many of the photos kept on the Police National Database (PND) …

  1. D Moss Esq

    Double whammy black eye for the police

    QUOTE

    MacGregor told the Beeb last night that there were "grounds for doubts" about the reliability of facial recognition tech.

    UNQUOTE

    Quite right.

    There's lots of evidence that the technology doesn't work, – http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/14/biometric_id_delusion/ – and no evidence that it does.

    Not just an invasion of privacy but also a waste of money. The police may want to be seen to be "doing something" but this is a double whammy black eye and not a feather in the cap at all (Catch-22).

    1. TeeCee Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Ever seen a test of eyewitness identification? (Fake crime, take statements from unsuspecting witnesses, use those who reckon they got a good look for lineup / mugshot ID).

      Makes automated facial recognition look ruddy infallible by comparison. If you really must have a fucked up method of identifying people, the one that's not admissible as evidence strikes me as preferable.

    2. Mark H

      Re: Double whammy black eye for the police

      Well there is some evidence that it does work, as the reporter tried it on Newsnight last night and it worked perfectly. He had his mugshot taken and then went outside where a Police Officer identified him with his wearable camera - scary stuff!

      I wonder how much the police have spent on all this. Apparently they managed to get 8 million records into the system within about 10 months - quite some going and must have cost a bit to pull off.

      1. Bob Wheeler
        FAIL

        Re: Double whammy black eye for the police

        The problem with facial recognition systems is it depends on how old the 'reference' photo is.

        I recently came through passport control at Heathrow, and it took the system around a dozen scans of before it could decide if my face matched my 5 year old passport photo.

        There have been past El Reg articles on who good, or not, the system the US Homeland department, and also the scrapped UK ID cards, all the same issue, with 'old' reference photos.

        1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
          Coat

          @BobWheeler I thought facial recognition worked by looking at the separation of eyes and other features that shouldn't be affected by the age of the photo. But according to Wikipedia, some systems do perform a crude statistical comparison with a reference image, and that would be affected by aging. So I guess it depends what system the police are using.

          But either way, Facebook is a handy public database of names and recent photos. They might even arrest a few genuine cat buglers. (Yeah, mine's the one with the moggy in the pocket: his canine accomplice is holding my canary hostage at an undisclosed kennel.)

          1. DJV Silver badge

            @Brewster's Angle Grinder

            "cat buglers"

            It's the buggers with trombones that cause havoc in my neighbourhood!

        2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Double whammy black eye for the police

          "The problem with facial recognition systems is it depends on how old the 'reference' photo is."

          This is why you're also not allowed to smile/look happy in passport photos. To give the immigration machines a fighting chance, your photo needs to look like you, tired, pissed off after a long flight and long queue. And then being directed to the 'express' queue where you can gurn for the amusement of the people queuing around you. It would probably be easier, faster and more accurate if they just flashed your photo up on a screen and let your fellow travellers vote on if you were you, or not.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Double whammy black eye for the police

            "This is why you're also not allowed to smile/look happy in passport photos" - ah, so if we smile whilst commiting a crime then we will never be recognised by the system!! :-) er I mean :-|

      2. SolidSquid

        Re: Double whammy black eye for the police

        There were tests done a few years ago on fingerprint databases in the US. Although they only got access to a limited amount of fingerprint data (iirc it was only one state), they were still able to hit something like 2000 false positives using the standard used by police and FBI. This is the risk that comes in with having a large data set, the more data the more specific you have to be to avoid falsely tying someone to a crime

      3. Archaon
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Double whammy black eye for the police

        "I wonder how much the police have spent on all this. Apparently they managed to get 8 million records into the system within about 10 months - quite some going and must have cost a bit to pull off."

        More to the point I'm shocked that a public sector IT system appears to...work? That almost gives me the confidence to suggest that it could have done the double whammy and actually come in on or under budget.

        Nah. Crazy talk, that.

        1. Otto is a bear.

          Re: Double whammy black eye for the police

          Sadly, quite a few public sector IT systems work, it's just that they ain't news

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Double whammy black eye for the police

        Much like the pre-cached publicity shots when they launch their new Faster Media websites, let's see someone prove in "real surroundings" that it is half reliable and not pre-programmed

    3. Christoph

      Don't worry - it's 100% reliable

      From the Beeb's website:

      "Andy Ramsay, identification manager at Leicestershire Police, told Newsnight the force now had a database with 100,000 custody photos.

      He said searches of the database using facial recognition were 100% reliable in cases where there were clear images, and could be completed in seconds."

      So you can be reassured that your photos are safe in the hands of an incompetent prat who couldn't recognise a clue if it smashed him over the head.

    4. g e

      Mike Barton looked (physically) a lot to me...

      Like someone who has snout firmly in trough.

      In fact I think he even had a bit of something still stuck on the end of his nose, while he was effectively saying he was gleefully exploiting a loophole.

      OK for them, not for us, he certainly seemed to think he was much more equal than everyone else.

  2. Gordon 10
    Thumb Up

    Does it matter if the beeb were late?

    The more times this gets dug up - the higher the fractional likelihood of something getting done about it.

    Especially in an election year.

    1. Archaon

      Re: Does it matter if the beeb were late?

      Not in itself no. But one would suggest that investigating issues that are somewhat older would perhaps be better suited to a current affairs program (i.e. Panorama) rather than Newsnight?

      1. vogon00

        Re: Does it matter if the beeb were late?

        Not really suitable for Panorama...perhaps a more apt program would be "You've been framed"?

    2. Chris 3

      Re: Does it matter if the beeb were late?

      Personally, I think Newsnight did it on purpose to see if they could give the reg staffer some kind of smugness-embolism.

      Did Kelly survive? That's what I want to know.

  3. James 51

    When people talking about old fashioned police work, I doubt that had phrenology in mind.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In other news,

    sales of Burka's and David Cameron Face Masks have both increased by 200%

    Don't PC Plod realise that if they go around holding piccies of at least 30% of the UK Population then more and more people will seek to avoid being snapped.

    It is not only crims that don't want their picture on this Database.

    Posting AC because one target on my back is enough

    1. Tom 7

      Re: In other news,

      I find a black balaclava keeps you warm - and rapidly inside.

      Baklava is nice too and you dont get pains in not normally visible body areas.

  5. The Sod Particle
    Black Helicopters

    Erm...

    Quote

    "It is important that images of those who are of no ongoing concern to the police are not held longer than necessary or used in warranted ways."

    UnQuote

    does that mean that they can be used in unwarranted ways?

    1. dogged

      Re: Erm...

      without a warrant, certainly.

  6. AndrueC Silver badge
    Facepalm

    MacGregor told the Beeb last night that there were "grounds for doubts" about the reliability of facial recognition tech.

    That's strange. It always works on TV. It can spot a terrorist wearing a fake beard and dark glasses in the middle of a crowd of people. What could possibly be wrong with it?

    1. Flywheel

      Never let a bit of doubt spoil a perfectly good arrest. If you're really unlucky you'll get tasered and your DNA sample will join the millions of others stored "just in case".

    2. breakfast Silver badge
      Trollface

      Also the interface on TV is always incredibly slow, showing each face in turn as it flicks through them. That always seems like weirdly stupid design to me- what are we going to do with the glimpses of all those faces? - but then I do watch films and worry more about the realism of the user interfaces they are using than the implausible stunts so it is more than possible that I am a total idiot.

    3. Otto is a bear.

      Interestingly

      Another BBC documentary showed a system that tracks people through a crowd using CCTV cameras around central London. Seemed to work fine.

  7. smudge
    FAIL

    What purpose?

    One of the requirements of the Data Protection Act is that personal data is used only for the purpose for which it was collected.

    "Barton also said he was "unashamed" about keeping the photos of innocent Brits on the database because the police apparently needed them "for different purposes"."

    Oh dear. Epic fail.

    1. hplasm
      Thumb Up

      Re: What purpose?

      Also: Surely the police have just one purpose?

    2. Richard 22
      Coat

      Re: What purpose?

      The Daily Mash has a suggestion on the "different purposes";

      http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/narcissistic-britons-worried-they-might-not-be-on-police-photo-database-2015020394995

    3. Graham Marsden
      Big Brother

      @smudge - Re: What purpose?

      > One of the requirements of the Data Protection Act is that personal data is used only for the purpose for which it was collected.

      Yeah, but there's a lovely weaselly cop-out clause that adds an exception for "the prevention, detection or investigation of a crime".

    4. Otto is a bear.

      Re: What purpose?

      One purpose for holding images of innocent people is missing persons. Another is searching for wanted people who haven't been convicted, or persons of interest (suspects), how would ports and airports know who to watch for without their photo. There are lots of legitimate uses for photographs, and the MK1 eyeball is also employed. Don't forget the Police also have access to the DVLA database so they can match your face to your driving licence if they stop you, amongst other things.

      1. Fr. Ted Crilly Silver badge

        Re: What purpose?

        'One purpose for holding images of innocent people is missing persons. Another is searching for wanted people who haven't been convicted, or persons of interest (suspects),'

        Oh you mean innocent people then, what could possibly go wrong eh.

      2. Tom 38

        Re: What purpose?

        Don't forget the Police also have access to the DVLA database so they can match your face to your driving licence if they stop you, amongst other things.

        They can look at specific records in the DVLA database. They are not allowed to search through each photo on the DVLA database to compare it to CCTV, and then use that as "evidence".

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    People are concerned that their photo might be in the police database, yet they are happy to post their photo's all over facebook and other internet sites.

    Of course nobody wants to be in an identity parade in case they get wrongly fingered for a crime. But if the police have a photo of somebody they want to interview, and there's no match in the PND, I don't see any technical reason why they couldn't run their face recognition technology against facebook.

    1. Tom 38

      Of course nobody wants to be in an identity parade in case they get wrongly fingered for a crime. But if the police have a photo of somebody they want to interview, and there's no match in the PND, I don't see any technical reason why they couldn't run their face recognition technology against facebook.

      I hope you see a moral reason sometime soon.

    2. Swarthy
      WTF?

      @AC

      That's a bit of an odd proposition, coming from an AC.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      yet they are happy to **voluntarily** post **somebody's** photo's all over facebook and other internet sites.

      FTFY.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    False positives?

    Doesn't the arithmetic of false positives apply here just as it does to the mass interception of emails phone calls etc?

    These folk are looking for a particular needle in a sizeable haystack.

    The more photos in the database, the larger the haystack, and the more misidentified results there will be, diverting limited police Human Resources off on wild goose chases.

    What could possibly go right?

    1. Strange Fruit

      Re: False positives?

      Ignoring the moralities for the moment, if the automatic matching comes up with 1 true positive and 199 false positives then it's not going to take long for a pair of human eyeballs to narrow it down a lot further

      1. Mark 85

        Re: False positives?

        But given the way thing work at this, won't that mean that at least 100 will be invited down to the local cop shop?

    2. JDC

      Re: False positives?

      Only if face recognition is the only lead they have - in most cases they'll also have an address, a reason the person's in the database (even if innocent, said person was presumably arrested on suspicion of a particular crime), etc. Even if 100 false positives turn up the police should be able to narrow that down considerably.

      Still not a justification for holding innocent people's data, but it does show that it's not such a problem.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: False positives?

        @JDC

        Not too long ago, Plod was arresting all sorts of people with the wrong address, wrong age, wrong physical appearance, etc on the basis of false positive DNA matches. And then forced them to prove their innocence; and leave their details on the PND because they had been arrested on suspicion of ...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: False positives?

      And also false negatives - wanted terrorist/criminal/missing person saunters past policeman whose helmet cam fails to match him to the photo in the system.

  10. Chris G

    "That is why we are currently reviewing the framework"

    Translates as" We will delay any changes as long as posssible in thr hope that everybody will forget about it".

  11. TheProf

    Kill the messenger.

    Apart from being 6 weeks behind The Register what have the BBC done to deserve another snippy article?

    They certainly didn't "claim(ing) a scoop". I heard 'The BBC has learned' but no mention of a scoop.

    Newsnight certainly didn't defend the police. Both guests in the studio attacked the police in this matter. In fact only the police officer put up any sort of defence of their behaviour.

    What did we learn from Newsnight? Depends who you are. El Reg readers: probably not so much. Newsnight viewers: probably enough to have their opinion of the police taken down another notch.

    What have we learned from El Reg? Well I've learned that tabloid tactics aren't just used by the print media.

  12. Cynical Observer
    Mushroom

    Screamed in Despair when this bit was broadcast

    Evan Davis: For a year or so you have been introducing the unconvicted into the database as I understand it and using facial recognition software knowing that a court has asked you not to do that

    Chief Constable Mike Barton: Well no! I am unashamed about keeping unconvicted photographs in this because we need them for different purposes than DNA and fingerprints and they are not covered by the same legislation.

    Essentially that amounted to a Chief Constable saying "Judges? Pah! I don't care what they order!"

    There should be alarm bells ringing on so many levels!

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Screamed in Despair when this bit was broadcast

      Paxman would have destroyed him after that. Can't get the staff these days.

    2. Red Bren
      Big Brother

      Re: Screamed in Despair when this bit was broadcast

      > Essentially that amounted to a Chief Constable saying "Judges? Pah! I don't care what they order!"

      That's probably due to the way that politicians have taken to passing knee-jerk anti terror/paedo/whatever legislation that permits gross infringement of civil liberties on the say-so of a senior police officer, rather than requiring judicial oversight. Chief Constable Barton has obviously got used to this lack of accountability and doesn't expect to face it any time soon.

  13. eJ2095

    How do you know...

    If you are on there....

    Oh yeh the police ask you to send a photo in with a SAE and they can check.....

  14. ukgnome

    hur hur

    The Reg is having a swipe at the beeb for slow reporting....

    Hey Kettle - This is pot

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    I'm amazed and astonished.

    Amazed and astonished they finally got the PND working that is!

  16. Montague Wanktrollop

    Before arriving on the Reg earlier I was browsing for MDM solutions. Lo and behold when arriving here I get served up with 'Sponsored Ads' offering me all kinds of MDM software.

    That form of tracking is more intrusive to me than having my ugly mug on the feds computers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The police have many more ways of permanently fucking up your life than advertisers.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Every adult???

    Isn't 18 million people most of the UK adult population?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Every adult???

      More than. The other 40 million are overgrown sheep (after allowing for some of the population who actually are children).

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ONLY ONE MAN CAN DEFEAT THIS TECHNOLOGY...

    'PHIL COOL'

  19. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

    There could be

    a perfectly valid reason they are doing this.

    Such as once the entire population is on the database, they'll know who committed what crime and where.

    So the politicians standing for power many years later get a nudge saying "Make sure the police get plenty of money, or we''ll tell the world exactly what you were doing behind the bikes shed aged 15&3/4 with Fionna Leatherington"

    And they'll have the pictures to prove it!

    Wheres the paper bag over your head icon ?

  20. James Pickett

    If the police make an arrest, they can tick a box and add 1 to their totaliser.

    If it's the wrong person, those actions are not reversed.

    The PND is about as reliable as the BBC.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "If the police make an arrest, they can tick a box and add 1 to their totaliser."

      ...and have you noticed how everyone at the scene is now "arrested on suspicion" and no one is "helping with enquires" anymore? Of course, once "arrested", photos, fingerprints and DNA all get taken and filed forever, whereas "helping with enquiries" doesn't allow them to do that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        There are far less arrests now - PACE Code G and the necessity test has a lot to answer for. Many people suspected of crime (from traffic offences to serious matters) are voluntarily interviewed at a police station - in some cases even where the necessity for their arrest would exist.

        The need to get fingerprints/DNA/photograph are not a necessity but might fall under 'prompt and effective investigation' if the police needed that information for their investigation (e.g. they had found a stain at a crime scene).

        Remember that if you receive an out of court disposal (caution) or are summonsed for certain offences but were never arrested, the police can still request (order) you come to the police station to have DNA/prints/photo taken.

        'Helping with enquiries' has always been a euphemism for being arrested!

        1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

          Actually you're wrong on most points there. Arrest means you're taken to a police station to have your mugshot, dabs and cheek (DNA) swab taken, if necessary by force. There are quite a few ways and means by which the police can arrest people, deprive them of their liberty for up to 36 hours, and then release them with no further charge.

          By that point they've already got your sensitive personal data and it's on their databases, which is more often than not the undeclared point of the arrest aside from buggering you around. The only way to avoid that is if you are, miraculously, de-arrested at the scene. This happens to very, very few people - Green Party politician Jenny "don't you know who I am!" Jones is one of these.

          "Helping with their enquiries" is not, and never has been, a euphemism for arrest. It is a euphemism for "being coerced into giving us information in a way that stops short of arrest because that triggers the need for a lawyer and a raft of legal protections which we find inconvenient".

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            I'm quite aware of what an arrest is. The point you're missing is that under PACE Code G the police have to have a necessity (aka lawful reason) to arrest you - simply suspecting you of a crime is not good enough - there have to be reasons why you need to be taken there and then to a police station (e.g. to stop you doing something, to investigate the matter promptly, to protect the public etc). The need to photograph/print/DNA you is NOT one of these necessities (unless the investigation necessitates it - e.g. you're a suspect AND the police have ALREADY found stains at the crime scene).

            The police are not under any pressure to arrest people - quite the opposite. An arrest only leads to more paperwork and being kept late for most officers (a typical prisoner will take at least four hours to process, even if the officer is handing the case over to another department). A voluntary interview on the other hand takes about an hour at mutually convenient times.

            You should join the BBC with sensationalism numbers such as 'up to 36 hours'... PACE is quite clear - prisoners must be dealt with expeditiously, if they're not being dealt with in that way the custody officer will release them on bail or NFA (no further action), simple. You also fail to mention that 24 hours is actually the maximum WITHOUT an Superintendent's authority. The Supt wouldn't grant this lightly - it's only in cases where the additional evidence can be gathered in the additional 12 hours (e.g. awaiting forensic results or hi-tech analysis of devices) AND the person can't be safely bailed (e.g. serious crime where they might skip the country or be a danger to society). They also won't grant it if the office in the case could have gotten the evidence in the original 24 hours. The other point to make is that people are typically kept in custody for far less than 24 hours anyway, despite what the documentaries would have you believe!

            Helping with enquiries is a humorous euphemism for arrest in modern times amongst officers. I don't think it's used publicly or by the general populous. I don't think your description of "being coerced into giving us evidence" is fair in modern British policing; read R v BRYCE...

            If the necessity for arrest is there, you're more often than not arrested, if the necessity isn't but the grounds for suspecting you committing a crime are, you're invited to be voluntarily interviewed (and perhaps if you refuse, the necessity for arrest would arise)... It doesn't matter though, if you're arrested or not, if the police intend to ask you about a crime you may have committed you have the same rights - solicitor, right to silence etc. R v BRYCE again.

  21. Bob Dole (tm)

    Does it bother anyone else that if the world ended now and aliens with the ability to regrow things from DNA stumbled onto the wreckage of this planet that they would only be restoring the worst of us?

  22. Phil W

    SAR

    Since the photos are apparantly covered by the DPA along with presumably other data the police hold on you, perhaps we should all issue Subject Access Requests to the police asking for copies of any and all data they hold on us.

    Either they will be forced to waste their time finding and supplying the data or in fobbing us off.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: SAR

      They will always use their built-in exemption to deny that request. It would compromise their investigation of crime by alerting criminals to how much (or little) they already know.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: SAR

        It depends... If you're not under active investigation you will get your data although some of it (e.g. identities of officers involved in your case, details of other suspects, victims etc) associated with you will be redacted.

        In other cases the police will outright refuse or 'neither confirm nor deny'...

        However, if you've been arrested once for being a drunkard two years ago and gave a statement about a theft of cycle last month but aren't exactly the career criminal, the police will give you your data - try it!

        What you need to do is carefully word your request - if you ask for everything they may deny your request based on the bits they don't want to give you... Target it carefully "Please send me a copy of the photograph taken of me when I was arrested on 01/01/2013".

  23. Domino

    Dear Mr Plod

    Please note that I would like to assert my rights under section 12.1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to prevent automated decision making based on my data. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

    Your friend,

    Domino

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Some Things

    As someone who knows a little bit about this article, I would point out the following:

    1) The facial recognition software does not search the PND image database, it only searches the local custody database of the force in which it's deployed. The BBC suggested it could search the entire PND in the way they presented the piece. The rules on the usage of data from the PND are such that this would be extremely difficult (politically and technically to achieve). Even a simple search of the PND requires a lot of justification and authorisation (typical reasons allowed are major crime, national security, child protection and sexual cases only).

    2) The police can only access DVLA database in connection with driving matters (e.g. to check you have a driving licence). They certainly cannot get the images and put them through image recognition (although who knows, perhaps other agencies can?) I doubt they would ever be able to do this.

    3) The match provided by the facial recognition software is as some elude to based on the measurements between facial features. It provides a score and presents options. The version I've seen cannot differentiate particularly well between male and female or across ethnicities. It's certainly not 100% but if the reference and source photos are good enough, it will match, no questions.

    4) The quality of the reference photo and the source are very important. The reference photo has to be a very high-quality custody photo (taken in good lighting, good lens, 10MP or more) and must be square/looking forwards, other sources don't work particularly well. For this reason hoovering Facebook for references etc wouldn't work (as well). Likewise the source has to be reasonably good quality too. In the example they showed with the bodyworn video, it was taken in good light on a HD camera - the quality of a still be very good. This is not typical of say poor quality CCTV or bodycam in a dark rainy street.

    5) As the Chief Constable eluded to, the best way to recognise a face is with a human brain. It is for this reason that the results are treated as 'intelligence'... Arrests/police action is not solely based on the computer going 'ping'... Someone looks at the results and goes 'hmmm, I agree that person does look a lot like the source... Oh look, their mother lives door to the victim, oh look their mobile phone number was mapping in the area, oh yes a witness did describe the person have a limp on the left leg like the intelligence for the match says'... This is the same as what happens if the police find your DNA at the scene or if your mobile phone was in the vicinity of a crime scene - they look at all the available information this first 'clue' uncovers and if more evidence is available, they can take it forward.

    What I'm saying is, this is a tool for the police. It's available so why shouldn't they use it? I think the sensationalism the BBC was trying to generate was unfounded - most people who have had their mug shot taken are convicted criminals or people who are guilty of offences. I agree that those who are released no further action (and who have no other criminal record) should be able to have their photo removed but in reality this is a very small number of people. As the Chief very poorly explained, most of the photos will be repeats of the same people... I.e. although there are 18m photos, that certainly doesn't represent 18m people!

    1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Re: Some Things

      Nice to have someone with a bit more of an inside knowledge on this comment, cheers. Interesting that the facial recognition can only be run on the local database.

      There were a whole lot of facts conflated in that interview but the key one for me is that innocent people's mugshots are being kept at all. I'm not worried about facial recognition or national databases of faces so long as it's only convicted criminals on there.

      I note Mr Plod - busily defending his following the letter of the law, if not the spirit - when asked directly about "how many people on that database have not been convicted of a crime" was unable to say, despite that fact that this was arguably the key point that the interview revolved around.

      We've got your assertion that it's a "very small number", well I'd like to know what that number is myself. Perhaps you could run SELECT COUNT(*) FROM IMAGE OUTER JOIN PERSON WHERE IMAGE.PERSON=PERSON.ID AND PERSON.PORRIDGE IS NULL when you get a minute and let us know the result?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Some Things

        I think the difficulty would come with the fact that the PND stores both criminal convictions (taken from PNC and other sources) and local intelligence/disposal information (e.g. non-court disposals where someone is still guilty of a crime but it's been dealt with in another way). It doesn't always fit nicely into a single nominal record e.g. if you search on a name it may bring back a person with similar details from the Met and another person with similar details from the GMP. A human can work out if they are the same person, the software cannot necessarily do this unless the local force has put them together with a unique identifier - e.g. PNC ID or CRO.

        But assuming you could design a sensible query to work out the number of individuals whose photographs are stored but whose number of convictions = 0, the BBC didn't tell the Chief they would be asking those sorts of questions so he was not prepared with those sorts of answers! You, me or the BBC are quite able to making an FOI request to ACPO or the College of Policing (who run the PND) and you'd probably get the information...

        The question here is that just because someone is not convicted it doesn't always make them not guilty of the offence (e.g. where they get off). So Parliament has decided that it's right that in those circumstances their biometrics (DNA/prints) are removed in most cases but their data (e.g. their name, the facts of the arrest, the records of suspicion) are kept in line with MoPI (so if you are a suspect of rape, you will be linked to that offence forever)... The police have decided the photos are data and treated them as such. This is the bit I think needs questioning but how can you balance protecting the public (e.g. Soham murders) vs. the people's right to privacy!

        1. Vic

          Re: Some Things

          The question here is that just because someone is not convicted it doesn't always make them not guilty of the offence

          Yes it does.

          We are innocent unless proven guilty. Not convicted === innocent.

          Vic.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Some Things

      most people who have had their mug shot taken are convicted criminals or people who are guilty of offences

      I once told a traffic warden to fuck off after a week of harassment. Imagine my surprise when I found out that it was not only illegal but a criminal offence. The officer pretended to be "alarmed harassed and distressed" or whatever the words were and I was duly nailed in court with a shiny new criminal badge on my personal stats.

      So that bollocks about "they're all criminals so they deserve it" is just that...bollocks.

      ===========================================================

      Just FYI, elude means "to dodge" and allude means "to refer to". So you definitely used the wrong word in point 3)...could go either way in your point 5) reference to a Chief Constable's statement.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Some Things

        Freudian slip obviously...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Some Things

      "The rules on the usage of data from the PND are such that this would be extremely difficult "

      So? You're not seriously trying to tell us that rules don't get broken by police + associates?

      Exhibit one (many others available):

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21451611 (Feb 2013)

      "Police officers and staff in Wales have broken the Data Protection Act 62 times in the past two years."

      And what consequences were there of these very serious breaches?

      "Four people were sacked and 14 resigned as a result of the breaches."

      What kind of stuff were they up to?

      "given a formal police caution for checking the database "pertaining to an associate, altering own record on police system and checking third parties on police system not for a policing purpose".

      Another who resigned was convicted at court after researching and disclosing information to a third party.

      The other five resigned after:

      checking incident involving relative

      checking incident involving former partner

      misusing access to system

      checking family members on database

      inappropriately accessing footage of incident.

      In addition, one personnel member was dismissed after "checking partner and third party on system".

      So whatever alleged deterrent effect the rules are supposed to have doesn't seem to have worked particularly well in these cases.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Some Things

        Yes of course rules get broken by a minority of individual officers. However:

        1) There is a massive difference between some idiots accessing police databases for individual unlawful purposes than forces as a whole deciding to plug the PND into facial recognition. Yes you could probably do a one off search unlawfully and probably get caught but I suspect the administrators of the PND would start to notice if 18 million images were being searched regularly by one force ;).

        Unless of course you are suggesting the entire establishment is corrupt and would do this without anyone knowing... But then that's not really corruption is it (e.g 'having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain')?

        As far as police data goes, what's on the PND is pretty sacrosanct. Getting access is difficult enough. Syphoning the data off for facial recognition without massive investment, oversight and project planning would be impossible without it being driven by the government (Home Office Policing Innovation Funding for example) in the first place!

        2) The breaches mentioned almost certainly do not include misuse of the PND. They will be searches of local intelligences and crime systems, electoral registers (all of which are 'self serve') and the PNC (relatively easy to access in comparison with the PND). The way the PND is implemented is that literally every search is scrutinised by other people - unless the entire chain is corrupt, I think misuse would be much harder (obviously not impossible).

        Of course what probably hasn't been thought about is whether the operators of the facial recognition on a local basis might be corrupt (e.g. identifying people for money or personal reasons). However, one would hope that vetting and monitoring of the use of the tool by anti-corruption departments would get to the bottom of this (much like it does with misuse of other police systems).

        Remember this TOOL is one of (probably hundreds) systems that the police can lawfully access... Think about your criminal records, police records (intelligence), prison records, court records, phone records, internet records, travel records, financial records, benefits records, education records - most can be accessed by the police through a combination of data sharing agreements, S29 DPA requests, RIPA and court warrants already. The police can even bug your home or tap your phone line if they can justify it and get the authorisation to do so.

        Sadly there are corrupt elements and yes there are bound to be privacy concerns but why is this one issue much more toxic when in reality all facial recognition does is provide an 'intelligence tip off' that a wanted person might be someone the police have already met? It's not like this is happening automatically - it's done in one-off cases in response to a policing need (e.g. the need to solve a crime). The same goes for the CCTV gait analysis - it's not done like it is on Spooks to every government CCTV feed; it's done in one-off cases where a forensic need exists.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Some Things

          Taking your words as gospel, that's the state of play at the moment.

          However.

          The current government seems to be assembling a DIY dystopia kit (as was the last one) and -tecnologically speaking- it would be relatively simple to 1) desanctify the PND and 2) apply face-recognition and gait recognition to everything, as an overlay (it's only software after all).

          We are already talking about a country with the highest number of cameras per head in the world, so yes, the general drift of events is a major cause for concern.

  25. Indolent Wretch

    Surely as long as the system ends with, here are the most likely matches, do you think it is one of them and then relies on a human beings facial recognition software then it's accuracy is not really relevant.

    It's the keeping of all the images in the first place that's relevant.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Custodians of Confidential Information

    I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned, but one of the stipulations of Data Protection is that data is held securely.

    What is the track-record of government-related bodies on this particular aspect of data-retention? I don't think I need to give examples, there being a multitude of them.

  27. This post has been deleted by its author

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like