Police will be able to conduct facial recognition searches of a database containing images of the country's 50 million driving license holders under a legal reform quietly being introduced by the British government. If police wish to conduct facial recognition on images collected on CCTV or shared on social media, the law will give them the power to search driving license records for matching images. The move, contained in a clause in the new Criminal Justice Bill, could make every driver in the country a permanent target for police, according to privacy campaigners.
A facial recognition search compares the biometric measurements of a recognized photo (such as the one on a driver's license) with the biometric measurements of an image collected elsewhere.
The intention to allow the police or the National Crime Agency (NCA) to use UK driving license records is not explicitly mentioned in the bill or its explanatory notes, prompting criticism from leading academics that the government is being "sneaky".
Once the Criminal Justice Bill is enacted, Home Secretary James Cleverly will have to put in place "Driver Information Regulations" to enable searches, but under the bill he only has to consult police agencies.
Critics say facial recognition technology poses a threat to individuals’ rights to privacy, freedom of expression, non-discrimination, and freedom of assembly and association.
At major public events such as protests, police are increasingly using real-time facial recognition technology to compare faces captured by cameras against databases of known identities.
Professor Peter Fussey, a former independent reviewer of the Metropolitan Police's use of facial recognition technology, said there was a worrying lack of oversight over the use of facial recognition systems and ministers' silence on research showing the technology was prone to misidentifying black and Asian faces. He said: "This is yet another example of how the use of facial recognition surveillance is expanding without clear limits or independent oversight. The Minister highlighted the practicality and convenience of this technology. Police believe that this technology is useful or convenient, but this is not sufficient reason to override the legal human rights protections that they are also obliged to uphold."
Access to driving license records is controlled under relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, which requires police to provide probable cause in relation to a breach of road traffic laws.
The explanatory notes to the new Criminal Justice Bill say "Section 21 clarifies who has access to driver data and enables the regulations to provide for access to DVLA driver information for all policing or law enforcement purposes".
Police Minister Chris Philp made explicit reference to the seemingly unstated purpose of the legislative change for the first time at the first committee meeting of MPs scrutinizing the bill on December 12. Philp questioned National Crime Agency director Graeme Biggar: "There is a power in section 21 that allows police and law enforcement, including the National Crime Agency, to access driving license records to conduct facial recognition searches, which are currently very difficult."
"When you have crime scene images from CCTV or similar, do you agree that it would be useful to be able to do facial recognition searches on DVLA records and other records that are currently accessible?" Beagle replied: "Yes, very useful. Being able to use facial recognition more is really important to us. I know this is an issue you have been advocating for."
The EU had considered making images of its member states' driving license records available in the Prüm crime-fighting database. The proposal was abandoned earlier this year because it was said to be an undue invasion of privacy.
Philp is known to be enthusiastic about facial recognition technology and has encouraged police to use it more. The Home Office is already looking to integrate data from the Police National Database (PND), Passport Office and EU Settled Identity Database into a single system to help police find matching images "at the click of a button".
A Home Office spokesman said: "Section 21 of the Criminal Justice Bill sets out the law around safeguards and liability for police use of DVLA records. The clause does not allow automatic access to DVLA records for facial recognition. As the public would expect, any further developments will require further engagement."
Carole McCartney, professor of law and criminal justice at the University of Leicester, said the lack of consultation on the law changes raised questions about the legality of the new powers.
She said: "This is another slippery slope down the slippery slope of allowing police to access any data they choose with almost no safeguards. Where is the public debate? If the public does not accept that the DVLA and passport databases are used in this way, how can the practice be legal?"
This summer, the government abolished the functions of the Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Materials and the Office of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, leaving ministers without an independent oversight body to review such legislative changes.
Chris Jones, director of civil liberties NGO Statewatch, called on MPs to reject the controversial change.
"This plan, neither publicly announced nor consulted for public consultation, will put anyone in the country with a driving license on permanent police lists. Opening up civilian databases for mass police searches would make everyone a suspect a priori. More surveillance and snooping powers will not make people safer," he said.
In 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that South Wales Police's use of facial recognition technology breached privacy, data protection and equality laws because the technology could have racial or gender bias.
But police continue to use the technology. Real-time facial recognition technology will be used to match Christmas market attendees this year against a watchlist.
"This is a shortcut to widespread state surveillance that we should all be worried about," said Katy Watts, an attorney with the civil rights advocacy group Liberty.