A pilot initiative employing Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology in south London has contributed to a decrease in robbery and shoplifting incidents, resulting in over 100 arrests, as reported by the Metropolitan Police.

The experimental program, which began in Croydon last October, utilizes fixed cameras mounted on street infrastructures rather than mobile vans. These cameras assess an individual’s distinct facial features and correlate them with identities on watch lists.

According to the Metropolitan Police, one-third of the apprehended individuals were charged with crimes against women and girls, including strangulation and sexual assault.

This development precedes a High Court challenge concerning the police’s application of LFR after a wrongful identification incident near London Bridge in the previous year.

Croydon’s trial employs 15 stationary cameras attached to lamp posts along both ends of the bustling North End high street.

Sgt. Kevin Brown from the LFR team clarified that the cameras are activated exclusively when police officers are on duty, which has occurred 13 times during the three-month duration of the trial.

He noted that any biometric data not linked to wanted individuals is deleted instantly and permanently.

Out of the 103 arrests made, he reported only one false alert that did not lead to an arrest.

Supt. Luke Dillon mentioned that overall crime rates in the Fairfield ward, where the pilot is implemented, experienced a 12% reduction.

“We’re witnessing declines in nearly all crime types, especially in shoplifting and robbery,” he stated.

Among those apprehended was a 36-year-old woman wanted since 2004 for failing to appear in court on assault-related charges.

The police also arrested a 27-year-old man suspected of kidnapping and identified a 37-year-old registered sex offender breaching a sexual harm prevention order by having an unregistered mobile device and access to social media.

Brown emphasized that the fixed camera setup allows for “more efficient” deployments compared to the mobile vans, as live feeds can be monitored remotely, leading to an arrest approximately every 34 minutes.

Despite the positive outcomes noted, the police have no current intentions to extend the pilot to additional areas in London.

While the Metropolitan Police refers to LFR as a “game-changing” asset in crime prevention, various civil rights activists and privacy advocates have consistently raised concerns about the technology.

They argue it infringes on privacy rights and poses an unacceptable risk of misidentification, expressing worries about the absence of specific domestic laws regulating police use of LFR.

Next week, the legal opposition will be brought to the High Court by the director of Big Brother Watch and Shaun Thompson, a 39-year-old man who was wrongly identified by LFR and subsequently stopped by police in February 2024 near London Bridge Tube station.

Thompson revealed that officers had requested his fingerprints, which he declined to provide, and he was ultimately released after approximately 30 minutes following the presentation of his passport photo.

He previously characterized LFR as “stop and search on steroids.”

The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has been permitted to join the judicial review, stated that the Metropolitan Police’s current implementation of LFR infringes on human rights legislation.

The Metropolitan Police maintains confidence in the legality and proportionality of using LFR.

Lindsey Chiswick, the Met’s national lead for LFR, indicated that since the beginning of 2024, more than 1,700 dangerous criminals, including those wanted for serious offenses like rape and child abuse, have been removed from the streets of London.

Mobile LFR units have also been deployed during significant events, including the King’s coronation in 2023 and outside a high-profile football match between Arsenal and Tottenham in November.

The technology was operational at the entrances and exits of the Notting Hill Carnival last summer, despite protests from activists and anti-racism groups who claimed it could be “less accurate for women and individuals of color” and that it unfairly targeted the community that the carnival aims to celebrate.

Despite these concerns, the Met asserted that their LFR algorithms had been proven free from bias in tests conducted by the National Physical Laboratory.

Privacy advocates have questioned why Croydon—a borough with a higher proportion of Black residents (22.6%) compared to 13.5% across London—was chosen for the fixed LFR camera pilot.

The police defended their decision by stating it was due to Croydon’s status as a “crime hotspot” and the presence of “local support” for the initiative.

Jose Joseph, chair of the Croydon Business Association and a local market stallholder, has urged for the local initiative to be expanded, advocating for additional cameras in West Croydon and Church Street.

“Our aim is to foster a safe environment in Croydon, benefiting both businesses and residents, while ensuring safety for women and children,” he stated.

Although Joseph acknowledged that some community members have voiced privacy concerns, he personally does not share those apprehensions.

“When you visit any shopping center or supermarket, there are cameras; when you use public transport, there are cameras. Why worry about facial recognition technology? It’s aimed solely at those with criminal backgrounds,” he expressed.

Several others he spoke to along North End resonated with his sentiments, stating that the cameras contributed to their sense of security.

“If you’re not doing anything wrong, I don’t understand the fear,” said Bright Dankwa.

Innis Looby noted that the technology could assist Croydon’s struggling businesses by reducing crime rates and found it amusing that people were uneasy about privacy issues.

“In today’s internet age, with all the information readily available online? Folks readily share personal details online but are anxious about this? That’s quite humorous to me,” he remarked.

Dawn Harris expressed her concerns for her teenage daughter’s safety, yet remained uncertain about the technology’s effectiveness.

“I have nothing to hide, so I don’t feel intruded upon, provided it’s in public spaces. I believe it might enhance safety during nighttime,” she stated.

Conversely, Lance Payne advocated for legislative measures to govern the use of LFR.

“We lack clarity on how the government will utilize this data, both now and in the future,” he observed.

“I’m also aware that facial recognition algorithms often perform poorly on darker-skinned individuals, which could lead to numerous cases of mistaken identity.”

Jasleen Chagger, a legal and policy officer for Big Brother Watch, criticized the police for treating the public as “test subjects” and functioning without adequate legal provisions.

“While we all desire to apprehend serious criminals, that doesn’t legitimize subjecting the entire population to suspicion-less identity checks.”

She argued that the technology has no place in London’s public spaces as it inherently presumes every passerby is a suspect.

A 10-week government consultation is presently underway to assess the use of LFR, which aims to establish a legal framework for its implementation.

Crime and Policing Minister Sarah Jones, MP for Croydon West, has described facial recognition technology, including LFR, as “the most significant advancement in criminal apprehension since DNA matching.”

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, MP for Croydon South, has expressed his support for the pilot program, asserting that LFR could “transform crime-fighting strategies.”

Dillon acknowledged the need for further efforts to address public concerns.

“There’s a continuous consideration regarding the legitimacy of this approach, so it’s vital to engage the public,” he remarked.

“We’re making an effort to clarify its functions, benefits, and the safeguards in place.”