In a recent press conference, the European Union said that to help tackle disinformation, it wants the major online platforms to label AI generated content.

The Challenge – AI Can Be Used To Generate And Spread Disinformation

In the press conference, Vĕra Jourová (the vice-president in charge of values and transparency with the European Commission) outlined the challenge by saying, “Advanced chatbots like ChatGPT are capable of creating complex, seemingly well-substantiated content and visuals in a manner of seconds,” and that “image generators can create authentic-looking pictures of events that never occurred,” as well as “voice generation software” being able to “imitate the voice of a person based on a sample of a few seconds.”

Jourová Warned of widespread Russian disinformation in Central and Eastern Europe and said, “we have the main task to protect the freedom of speech, but when it comes to the AI production, I don’t see any right for the machines to have the freedom of speech.”   

Labelling Needed Now 

To help address this challenge, Jourová called for all 44 signatories of the European Union’s code of practice against disinformation to help users better identify AI-generated content. One key method she identified was for big tech platforms such as Google, Facebook (Meta), and Twitter to apply labels to any AI generated content to identify it as such. She suggested that this change should take place “immediately.” 

Jourová said she had already spoken with Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai about how the technologies exist and are being worked on to enable the immediate detection and labelling AI-produced content for public awareness.

Twitter, Under Musk 

Jourová also highlighted how, by withdrawing from the EU’s voluntary Code of Practice against disinformation back in May, Elon Musk’s Twitter had chosen confrontation and “the hard way, warning that, by leaving the code, Twitter had attracted a lot of attention,” and that “Its actions and compliance with EU law will be scrutinised vigorously and urgently.” 

At the time, referring to the EU’s new and impending Digital Services Act, the EU’s Internal Market Commissioner, Thierry Breton, wrote on Twitter: “You can run but you can’t hide. Beyond voluntary commitments, fighting disinformation will be legal obligation under #DSA as of August 25. Our teams will be ready for enforcement”.

The DSA & The EU’s AI Act 

Legislation, such as that referred to by Thierry Breton, is being introduced in the EU as a way to tackle the challenges posed by AI in the EU’s own way rather than relying on Californian laws. Impending AI legislation includes:

The Digital Services Act (DSA) which includes new rules requiring Big Tech platforms like Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to assess and manage risks posed by their services, e.g. advocacy of hatred and the spread of disinformation. The DSA also has algorithmic transparency and accountability requirements to complement other EU AI regulatory efforts which are driving legislative proposals like the AI Act (see below) and the AI Liability Directive. The DSA directs companies, large online platforms and search engines to label manipulated images, audio, and video.

The EU’s proposed ‘AI Act’ described as “first law on AI by a major regulator anywhere” which assigns applications of AI to three risk categories. These categories are ‘unacceptable risk’, e.g. government-run social scoring of the type used in China (banned under the Act), ‘high-risk’ applications, e.g. a CV-scanning tool to rank job applicants (which will be subject to legal requirements), plus those applications not explicitly banned or listed as high-risk which are largely left unregulated.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Among the many emerging concerns about AI, there are the fears that the unregulated publishing of AI generated content could spread misinformation and disinformation (via deepfakes videos, photos, and voices) and in doing so, AI could erode truth and even threaten democracy. One method for enabling people to spot AI-generated content is to have it labelled (which the DSA seeks to do anyway) however the EC’s vice-president in charge of values and transparency with the EC sees this as being needed ungently, hence asking all 44 signatories of the European Union’s code of practice against disinformation to start labelling AI-produced content now.

Arguably, it’s unlike big tech companies to act voluntarily before regulations and legislation force them to and Twitter seems to have opted out already. The spread of Russian disinformation in Central and Eastern Europe is a good example of why labelling may be needed so urgently. That said, as Vĕra Jourová acknowledged herself, free speech needs to be protected too.

With AI generated content being so difficult to spot in many cases and with AI-generated content being published so quickly (in vast amounts), along with AI tools available to all for free, it’s difficult to see how the idea of labelling could be achievable or monitored/policed.

The requirement for big tech platforms like Google and Facebook to label AI-generated content could have significant implications for businesses and tech platforms alike. For example, primarily, labelling AI-generated content could be a way to foster more trust and transparency between businesses and consumers. By clearly distinguishing between content created by humans and that generated by AI, users would be empowered to make informed decisions. This labelling could help combat the spread of misinformation and enable individuals to navigate the digital realm with greater confidence.

However, businesses relying on AI-generated content must consider the impact of labelling on their brand reputation. If customers perceive AI-generated content as less reliable or less authentic, it could erode trust in the brand and deter engagement. Striking a balance between AI-generated and human-generated content would become crucial, potentially necessitating increased investments in human-generated content to maintain authenticity and credibility.

Also, labelling AI-generated content would bring attention to the issue of algorithmic bias. Bias in AI systems, if present, could become more noticeable when content is labelled as AI-generated. To address this concern, businesses would need to be proactive in mitigating biases and ensuring fairness in the AI systems used to generate content.

Looking at the implications for tech platforms, there may be considerable compliance costs associated with implementing and maintaining systems to accurately label AI-generated content. Such endeavours (if possible, to do successfully) would demand significant investments, including the development of algorithms or manual processes to effectively identify and label AI-generated content.

Labelling AI-generated content could also impact the user experience on tech platforms. Users might need to adjust to the presence of labels and potentially navigate through a blend of AI-generated and human-generated content in a different manner. This change could require tech platforms to rethink their user interface and design to accommodate these new labelling requirements.

Tech platforms would also need to ensure compliance with specific laws and regulations related to labelling AI-generated content. Failure to comply could result in legal consequences and reputational damage. Adhering to the guidelines set forth by governing bodies would be essential for tech platforms to maintain trust and credibility.

Finally, the introduction of labelling requirements could influence the innovation and development of AI technologies on tech platforms. Companies might find themselves investing more in AI systems that can generate content in ways that align with the labelling requirements. This, in turn, could steer the direction of AI research and development and shape the future trajectory of the technology.

The implications of labelling AI-generated content for businesses and tech platforms are, therefore, multifaceted. Businesses would need to adapt their content strategies, manage their brand reputation, and address algorithmic bias concerns. Tech platforms, on the other hand, would face compliance costs, the challenge of balancing user experience, and the need for innovation in line with labelling requirements. Navigating these implications would require adjustments, investments, and a careful consideration of user expectations and experiences in the evolving landscape of AI-generated content.

During his recent visit to Washington in the US, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that the UK will hosts the world’s first global summit on artificial intelligence (AI) later this year.

Focus On AI Safety 

The UK government says this first major global summit on AI safety will bring together key countries, leading tech companies and researchers to agree safety measures to evaluate and monitor the most significant risks from AI.

Threat of Extinction 

Since ChatGPT became the fastest growing app in history and people saw how ‘human-like’ generative AI appeared to be, much has been made of the idea that AI’s rapid growth could see it get ahead of our ability to control it, leading to it destroying and replacing us. For example, this fear has been fuelled with events like:

– In March, an open letter asking for a 6-month moratorium on labs training AI to make it more powerful than GPT-4, signed by notable tech leaders like Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, and Tristan Harris.

– In May, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, signing the open letter from the San Francisco-based Centre for AI Safety warning that AI poses a threat that should be treated with the same urgency as pandemics or nuclear war, and could result in human extinction. See the letter and signatories here: https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk#open-letter .

How? 

Current thinking about just how AI could wipe us all out in just a couple of years and the risks that AI poses to humanity includes:

– The Erosion of Democracy: AI-producing deep-fakes and other AI-generated misinformation resulting in the erosion of democracy.

– Weaponisation: AI systems being repurposed for destructive purposes, increasing the risk of political destabilisation and warfare. This includes using AI in cyberattacks, giving AI systems control over nuclear weapons, and the potential development of AI-driven chemical or biological weapons.

– Misinformation: AI-generated misinformation and persuasive content undermining collective decision-making, radicalising individuals, and hindering societal progress, and eroding democracy. AI, for example could be used to spread tailored disinformation campaigns at a large scale, including generating highly persuasive arguments that evoke strong emotional responses.

– Proxy Gaming: AI systems trained with flawed objectives could pursue their goals at the expense of individual and societal values. For example, recommender systems optimised for user engagement could prioritise clickbait content over well-being, leading to extreme beliefs and potential manipulation.

– Enfeeblement: The increasing reliance on AI for tasks previously performed by humans could lead to economic irrelevance and loss of self-governance. If AI systems automate many industries, humans may lack incentives to gain knowledge and skills, resulting in reduced control over the future and negative long-term outcomes.

– Value Lock-in: Powerful AI systems controlled by a few individuals or groups could entrench oppressive systems and propagate specific values. As AI becomes centralised in the hands of a select few, regimes could enforce narrow values through surveillance and censorship, making it difficult to overcome and redistribute power.

– Emergent Goals: AI systems could exhibit unexpected behaviour and develop new capabilities or objectives as they become more advanced. Unintended capabilities could be hazardous, and the pursuit of intra-system goals could overshadow the intended objectives, leading to misalignment with human values and potential risks.

– Deception: Powerful AI systems could engage in deception to achieve their goals more efficiently, undermining human control. Deceptive behaviour may provide strategic advantages and enable systems to bypass monitors, potentially leading to a loss of understanding and control over AI systems.

– Power-Seeking Behaviour: Companies and governments have incentives to create AI agents with broad capabilities, but these agents could seek power independently of human values. Power-seeking behaviour can lead to collusion, overpowering monitors, and pretending to be aligned, posing challenges in controlling AI systems and ensuring they act in accordance with human interests.

Previous Meetings About AI Safety

The UK Prime Minister has been involved in several meetings about how nations can come together to mitigate the potential threats posed by AI including:

– In May, meeting the CEOs of the three most advanced frontier AI labs, OpenAI, DeepMind and Anthropic in Downing Street. The UK’s Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology also hosted a roundtable with senior AI leaders.

– Discussing this issue with businesspeople, world leaders and all members of the G7 at Hiroshima Summit last month where they agreed to aim for a shared approach to this issue.

Global Summit In The UK

The world’s first global summit about AI safety (announced by Mr Sunak) will be hosted in the UK this autumn. It will consider the risks of AI, including frontier systems, and will enable world leaders to discuss how these risks can be mitigated through internationally coordinated action. The summit will also provide a platform for countries to work together on further developing a shared approach to mitigating these risks and the work at the AI safety summit will build on recent discussions at the G7, OECD and Global Partnership on AI.

Prime Minister Sunak said of the summit, “No one country can do this alone. This is going to take a global effort. But with our vast expertise and commitment to an open, democratic international system, the UK will stand together with our allies to lead the way.” 

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The speed at which ChatGPT and other AI has grown has happened ahead of a proper assessment of risk, regulation and a co-ordinated strategy for mitigating risks while maintaining the positive benefits and potential of AI. Frightening warnings and predictions by big tech leaders have also helped provide the motivation for countries to get together for serious talks about what to do next.  The announcement of the world’s first global summit on AI safety, to be hosted by the UK, marks a significant step in addressing the risks posed by artificial intelligence, and could provide some Kudos to the UK and help strengthen the idea that the UK is a major player in the tech industry.

The bringing together of key countries, leading tech companies, and researchers to agree on safety measures and evaluate the most significant risks and threats associated with AI and the collective actions taken by the global community, including discussions at previous meetings and the upcoming summit, demonstrate a commitment to mitigating these risks through international coordination and are a positive first step in governments catching up with (and getting a handle on) this most fast-moving of technologies.

It is important to remember that while AI poses challenges, it also offers numerous benefits for businesses. These benefits include improved efficiency, enhanced decision-making, and innovative solutions, and tools such as ChatGPT and image generators such as DALL-E have proven to be popular time-saving, cost-saving and value-adding tools. That said, AI image generators have raised challenges to copyrighting and consent for artists and visual creatives. Although there have been dire warnings about AI, these seem far removed from the practical benefits that AI is delivering for businesses, and striking a fair balance between harnessing the potential of AI and addressing its risks is crucial for ensuring a safe and beneficial future for all.

Absolut Vodka has begun a 3-month trial of its first commercially available single-mould, paper-based bottle.

Trial – 22 Tesco Stores In Greater Manchester 

As part of what it describes as its “journey to create a fully bio-based bottle”, Swedish vodka brand Absolut is holding a trial of the 500ml-sized single-mould paper bottles in 22 Tesco’s stores in the Greater Manchester area (priced £16 each).

Gathering Feedback  

The trial will be used to gather feedback and insights from Absolut’s consumers, retailers, and supply chain partners about how the paper-based bottles are transported and perceived by customers.

Mostly Paper … With A Plastic Barrier  

The paper-based bottles are, in fact, 57 per cent paper and include an integrated barrier of recyclable plastic and were created in collaboration with Paboco (the Paper Bottle Company). Paboco is understood to also be working with other global brands like The Coca-Cola Company, Carlsberg, P&G and L’Oréal to help the drinks and packaging industries create more sustainable packaging.

Carbon Neutral By 2030  

It is hoped that the paper-based vodka bottles will be another step towards helping Absolut reach its target of making its vodka a carbon neutral product by 2030. Its distillery, for example, emits 98 per cent fewer emissions than the average distillery, and the new bottles will be a prerequisite for the company being able to meet this goal is in reducing the carbon footprint of its packaging.

Glass Is Recyclable … So Why Is Paper Better? 

Although standard glass bottles are also recyclable, Absolut says the paper-based bottles are eight times lighter and easier to carry. This will save costs in transportation and energy consumption during shipping as well as being an improvement in terms of sustainability and carbon reduction.

New Market Opportunities Too 

Also, the fact that paper-based bottles offer greater design flexibility compared to glass means they could be moulded into different shapes and sizes, allowing for innovative and customisable packaging options, thereby allowing the company to create new, differentiated, and segmented products that stand out from competing vodka brands. This idea was evident when Elin Furelid, Director of Future Packaging at Absolut commented “We are exploring packaging that has a completely different value proposition. Paper is tactile; it’s beautiful; it’s authentic; it’s light. That was our starting point”. 

Absolut says it believes consumers will use the paper bottles in out-of-home occasions such as festivals. For example, festivals such as Glastonbury ban festival-goers from taking glass bottles inside. It may transpire, therefore, that the packaging also offers another way for Absolut to appeal to and further establish itself among younger drinkers.

Sustainable Future 

Elin also said of the paper-based bottles: “We want consumers and partners to join our journey towards a more sustainable future. Together we can develop packaging solutions that people want and the world needs. That’s why bold partnerships with like-minded organisations to test the waters are going to be evermore crucial on our net zero journey.” 

Absolut And AI 

Absolut is a brand that has also made the news through becoming the world’s first vodka brand to visually develop cocktail art using AI. In Canada, the company compiled a list of cocktail ingredients from different Canadian cities, put them into an AI platform, and asked it to mix cocktail artwork celebrating each neighbourhood.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

This paper-based packaging represents not just a way for the vodka brand to help meet its green targets, reduce its carbon footprint, and improve sustainability in its packaging but it also has many commercial advantages. For example, because it’s lightweight it can reduce transport costs (and shipping energy consumption) and its flexibility as a packaging medium compared to glass could enable innovative and differentiated packaging designs that can enhance the brand, help market new products, and allow easier segmentation and targeting. The example of AI being used to generate designs drawing upon different city cocktail preferences, combined with limited runs of paper-based packaging show what could be possible in terms of targeting. Absolut’s paper-based bottle trial is only 3 months dureation, and it will be alongside normal glass bottles, nevertheless it’s an example of how sustainability innovations could help lower the carbon footprint of the drinks industry and could provide an energy and cost-saving replacement to glass bottles for many different products in the near future as well as helping the recycling industry.

Consider all the atoms in 10 million galaxies …

At midnight on June 18th, 1997, the DESCHALL Project bore fruit. The challenge had been to use ‘Brute Force’ to discover the meaning of a message which had been encrypted. Going through up to seven billion possibilities per second, the key was cracked after 96 days by thousands of computers running simultaneously. The message was revealed to be “Strong cryptography makes the world a safer place”.

Back then, the specialist software used to brute-force the ‘key’ was designed for use on Pentium 200MHz computers which of course are now very outmoded by chips running faster by orders of magnitude. This forced The National Institute of Standards and Technology to initiate what would morph into the formidable Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). Today, AES 256-bit encryption stands as a standard in the encryption landscape.
One might be forgiven for thinking that this 256-bit encryption is unhackable. After all, the largest number expressed by 256 bits is of the order of magnitude of the number of atoms contained in 10 million galaxies. Give or take a few atoms.

Yet even these mind-boggling large numbers used in current 256-bit encryption standards can’t withstand the onslaught of quantum computing, when it’s fully realised. This means novel methods of post-quantum encryption to secure information must be innovated and this will represent both opportunities and threats for businesses, as is always the case with any kind of disruption.

The (US) FBI has issued a warning that scammers are altering benign photographs and videos to create explicit deepfake photos videos. The deepfake videos and photos are publicly circulated on social media or pornographic websites and/or sent to victims for the purposes of targeting them with harassment or sextortion schemes. The advice is to exercise caution when posting or direct messaging personal photos, videos, and identifying information on social media, dating apps, and other online sites.

Using WhatsApp as a personal note-taking tool allows you to conveniently store and organise your thoughts, links, and important information and provides a fast and accessible way to capture and retrieve notes whenever you need them. Here’s how to use WhatsApp as a personal note-taking tool:

– Open WhatsApp on your mobile device and create a new chat by tapping on the ‘New Chat’ icon.

– Instead of selecting a contact, search for your own phone number or name in the contacts list.

– Tap on your own contact to start a private chat with yourself and treat this chat as your personal note-taking space.

– Write down important information, ideas, links, or draft messages that you want to save for later.

– Use the text input field to type your notes or paste links. You can also use the attachment options to save photos, videos, or documents as notes.

– To keep your notes organised, you can create categories or use hashtags within the chat to label and group related notes.

– Whenever you need to access your notes, simply open the chat with yourself and scroll through the saved messages.

– Since WhatsApp synchronises across devices, you can access your notes from any device where you have WhatsApp installed.

An Observer investigation has reported uncovering evidence that 20 NHS Trusts have been collecting data about patients’ medical conditions and sharing it with Facebook.

Using A Covert Tracking Tool 

The newspaper’s investigation found that over several years, the trusts have been using the Meta Pixel analytics tool to collect patient browsing data on their websites. The kind of data collected includes page views, buttons clicked, and keywords searched. This data can be matched with IP address and Facebook accounts to identify individuals and reveal their personal medical details.

Sharing this collected personal data, albeit unknowingly, with Facebook’s parent company without the consent of NHS Trust website users and, therefore, illegally (data protection/GDPR) is a breach of privacy rights.

Meta Pixel 

The Meta Pixel analytics tool is a piece of code which enables website owners to track visitor activities on their website, helps identify Facebook and Instagram users and see how they interacted with the content on your website. This information can then be used for targeted advertising.

17 Have Now Removed It 

It’s been reported that since the details of the newspaper’s investigation were made public, 17 of the 20 NHS trusts identified as using the Meta Pixel tool have now removed it from their website, with 8 of those trusts issuing an apology.

The UK’s Infromation Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is now reported to have begun an investigation into the activities of the trust.

UK GDPR 

Under the UK Data Protection Act 2018 and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), organisations processing personal data must obtain lawful grounds for processing, which typically includes obtaining user consent. Personal data is any information that can directly or indirectly identify an individual.

An NHS trust using an analytics tool like Meta Pixel on their website to collect and share personal data without obtaining user consent, could potentially be illegal and both the NHS trust and the analytics tool provider (Meta) have responsibilities under data protection laws.

The GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act require organisations to provide transparent information to individuals about the collection and use of their personal data, including the purposes of processing and any third parties with whom the data is shared. Individuals must be given the opportunity to provide informed consent before their personal data is collected, unless another lawful basis for processing applies.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The recent revelation that 20 NHS Trusts have been collecting and sharing personal data with Facebook through the use of the Meta Pixel analytics tool raises important lessons for businesses regarding their data protection practices. The Trusts’ actions, conducted without user consent, appear to represent a breach of privacy rights and potentially violate data protection laws, including the UK Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR.

The Meta Pixel analytics tool, although widely used as an advertising effectiveness measurement tool, can have unintended consequences when it comes to personal data, such as medical data, and data privacy. The amount of information shared through this tool is often underestimated, and the implications for the NHS trusts could be severe. As several online commentators have pointed out, the trusts may have known little about how the Meta Pixel tool works and, therefore, collected, and shared user data unwittingly, however ignorance is unlikely to stand up as an excuse.

It is, of course encouraging that in response to the investigation, 17 out of the 20 identified NHS Trusts have at least removed the Meta Pixel tool from their websites, with some going on to issue apologies. To avoid similar privacy breaches and maintain the trust of customers, businesses should take immediate action.

Examples of how businesses could ensure their data protection compliance as regards their website and any tools used could include establishing a cross-functional data protection team with members from legal, technology, and marketing, and with the support of senior management. They could also conduct a thorough analysis of all data collected and transferred by websites and apps and identify the data necessary for their operations and ensure that legal grounds (such as consent) are in place for collecting and processing that data. For most smaller businesses it’s a case of remembering to stay on top of data protection matters, check what any tools are collecting and keep the importance of consent top-of-mind.

The implications for Meta of the newspaper’s report and the impending ICO investigation are significant as well. The incident highlights the need for greater transparency and understanding of the tools and services offered by companies like Meta, especially when it comes to sensitive topics and personal data. Privacy concerns arise when information from browsing habits is shared with social media platforms. Meta must address these concerns and ensure that the data collected through its tools is handled in accordance with data protection laws and user consent.

Overall, this case emphasises the importance of data protection compliance, informed consent, and transparency in the handling of personal data. Businesses must prioritise privacy and data security to maintain customer trust and avoid legal consequences.

Hmm, where have we seen this before? Stanford University scientists have created a multi-layered, self-healing electronic skin for robots and prosthetics that has a sense of touch and can realign itself autonomously when cut.

Layered Polymers 

The research team created the synthetic skin using thin layers of rubber, latex (natural polymers), and other polymers including PPG (polypropylene glycol) and PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane, also known as silicone). These layered polymers were chosen because they have rubber-like electrical and mechanical properties, biocompatibility, can be mixed with nano or microparticles to enable electric conductivity and hydrogen bonding can be used to turn them into a durable, multilayer material that resembles human skin.

Self-Healing 

Heating of the synthetic skin and the viscosity and elastic responses of the materials it’s made from means it’s able to heal and re-align itself in about 24 hours. As it ‘heals’ the synthetic skin can re-align and re-assemble itself due to the addition of magnetic materials to its polymer layers.

Sensation  

The Stanford scientists also reported that the current prototype of the skin was engineered to sense pressure, and in future versions, additional layers engineered to sense changes in temperature or strain could be included.

Uses 

One of the research team’s envisioned uses for the synthetic skin includes a skin that can be used to wrap robots and prosthetics, giving them self-healing properties and a human-like sense of touch.

Swallowing Mini Surgeon Robots 

One other exciting future usage of this material envisioned by the team is robots that could be swallowed in pieces and then self-assembled inside the body to perform non-invasive medical treatments!

One of the co-authors of the study, Chris Cooper PhD says: “We’ve achieved what we believe to be the first demonstration of a multi-layer, thin film sensor that automatically realigns during healing. This is a critical step toward mimicking human skin, which has multiple layers that all re-assemble correctly during the healing process”. 

Another co-author of the study Sam Root (postdoctoral researcher), says of the synthetic skin, “It is soft and stretchable. But if you puncture it, slice it, or cut it— each layer will selectively heal with itself to restore the overall function,” Root describes it as “Just like real skin.”  

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This new multi-layered approach using dynamic polymers could be a major step forward that could give robots and prosthetics a layer of skin that can not only ‘feel’ sensations but can (quickly) heal and re-align itself when damaged, just like human skin. This is the stuff of science fiction and although it is still early days, this technology could create some amazing opportunities in the world of robots and for patients in medicine. The research team also envision using the materials to create self-assembling surgeon robots that could be swallowed and carry out minor procedures inside the body which could save costs, reduce waiting lists, and mean faster healing times for patients. The combination of robotics, AI, and this new skin technology could create a range of new robots and prosthetics that are more human-like and more useful than ever taking us one step further to a future that has until now, seemed a long way off.

With the Metropolitan Police Services’ (MPS) director of intelligence recently defending and pushing for a wider rollout of facial recognition technology, we look the current situation, the likely way forward, and its implications.

What Is Facial Recognition Technology? 

The kind of facial recognition technology called Live Facial Recognition (LFR) that police have used at special assignments and high-profile events (e.g. sports and other large public events) is a biometric technology system that maps facial features from a video (or still photo) taken of a person (e.g. while walking in the street or at an event). The video image is then compared to information stored in a police database of faces to find a match. The cameras are separate from the database which is stored on a server and the technology must, therefore, connect to the server to use the database and match a face in a specific area.  Facial recognition is often involuntary, i.e. it is being used somewhere that a person happens to go – it has not been sought or requested.

Example Of Recent Use – The Coronation

The biggest live facial recognition operation in British history occurred back in May this year when it was used by London’s Met to cover the crowds at the coronation procession through London. The police said it was used to identify any attendees who were on a wanted list for alleged crimes, and any convicted terrorists in the crowds. It was reported that 68,000 faces were scanned.

However, some campaigners expressed concern that it was being used against protesters and Emmanuelle Andrews from the campaign group Liberty described the use of LFR at the coronation as “extremely worrying” and described LFR as “a dystopian tool and dilutes all our rights and liberties.”

Also, the Big Brother Watch privacy group commented that, “Live facial recognition is an authoritarian mass surveillance tool that turns the public into walking ID cards” and that “The coronation should not be used to justify the rollout of this discriminatory and dangerous technology”. 

Sparse Use Up Until Now 

The use of LFR by police in the UK has, however, been relatively sparse up until now, mainly because (as illustrated by some of the above comments) of a lack public trust in how and why the systems are deployed, how accurate they are (leading to possible wrongful arrest), how they affect privacy, and the lack of clear regulations to effectively control their use.

For example, the lack of public trust in LFR in the UK and other countries can be traced back to events like:

– In December 2018, Elizabeth Denham, the UK’s Information Commissioner launched a formal investigation into how police forces used FRT after high failure rates, misidentifications and worries about legality, bias, and privacy. This stemmed from the trial of ‘real-time’ facial recognition technology on Champions League final day June 2017 in Cardiff, by South Wales and Gwent Police forces, which was criticised for costing £177,000 and yet only resulting in one arrest of a local man whose arrest was unconnected.

– Trials of FRT at the 2016 and 2017 Notting Hill Carnivals leading to the Police facing criticism that FRT was ineffective, racially discriminatory, and confused men with women.

– In September 2018 a letter, written by privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch and signed by more than 18 politicians, 25 campaign groups, plus numerous academics and barristers, highlighted concerns that facial recognition is being adopted in the UK before it has been properly scrutinised.

– In September 2019 it was revealed that the owners of King’s Cross Estate had been using FRT without telling the public, and with London’s Metropolitan Police Service supplying the images for a database.

– In May 2020, a published letter by London Assembly members Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and Sian Berry AM to the then Metropolitan Police commissioner Cressida Dick asked whether the FRT technology could be withdrawn during the COVID-19 pandemic on the grounds that it had been shown to be generally inaccurate, and this raised questions about civil liberties. The letter also highlighted concerns about the general inaccuracy of FRT and the example of first two deployments of LFR in 2020, where more than 13,000 faces were scanned, only six individuals were stopped, and five of those six were misidentified and incorrectly stopped by the police. Also, of the eight people who created a ‘system alert’, seven were incorrectly identified. Concerns were also raised about how the already questionable accuracy of FRT could be challenged further by people wearing face masks at the time to curb the spread of COVID-19.

– In May 2023, it was reported that South Wales Police had used facial recognition cameras at a Beyoncé concert “to support policing in the identification of persons wanted for priority offences”. The use of LFR at the concert was met with some criticism and it’s worth noting that, in an Appeal Court victory against the police in 2020 (dating back to an incident on 2017) the use of LFR in Wales was ruled as unlawful.

– In the EU, in January 2020, the European Commission considered a ban on the use of facial recognition in public spaces for up to five years while new regulations for its use are put in place.

– In the U.S. in 2018, a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that Amazon’s ‘Rekognition’ software was racially biased after a trial in which it misidentified 28 black members of Congress.

– In December 2019, a US report showed that, after tests by The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of 189 algorithms from 99 developers, their facial recognition technology was found to be less accurate at identifying African American and Asian faces and was particularly prone to misidentifying African American females.

– In October 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a ban on the use of AI-based predictive policing systems and the processing of biometric data that leads to mass surveillance.

Calls To Use Routinely On Body Cams 

Most recently, in May this year, as revealed in a document produced for the surveillance camera commissioner, UK government ministers were shown to have been calling for LFR to be “embedded” in everyday policing, perhaps by linking it to police bodycams while officers patrol the streets. For example, it was reported that the document said that policing minister Chris Philp had expressed his desire to embed facial recognition technology in policing and is considering how the government could support the police on this issue. It was also reported that Home Office spokesperson had confirmed that the government backed greater use of facial recognition saying, “The government is committed to empower the police to use new technologies like facial recognition in a fair and proportionate way. Facial recognition plays a crucial role in helping the police tackle serious offences including murder, knife crime, rape, child sexual exploitation and terrorism.” 

Parliamentary Commission

Following reports that the policing minister has pushed for facial recognition to be rolled out across police forces nationally, and the EU recently moved to ban facial recognition technology and predictive policing systems (based on profiling, location, or past criminal behaviour) through its upcoming AI Act, there was a parliamentary commission meeting last month on the subject. The meeting was for MPs to examine the Metropolitan Police’s use of LFR technology at the coronation, and potential future AI-based tools. The director of intelligence at the Metropolitan Police Services (MPS), Lindsey Chiswick, defended the use of facial recognition technology and made the points that:

– There are many operational benefits of facial recognition technology, including significant arrests related to drug supply, assault, possession of drugs, and escaped prisoners. She clarified that the technology is a precision-based tool aimed at identifying individuals wanted for serious crimes rather than a mass surveillance or mass arrest tool.

– It is important to assess the necessity and proportionality of each facial recognition deployment and LFR is not a just fishing expedition but focuses on areas with public concern about high levels of crime.

– A recent study commissioned by the MPS, conducted by the National Physical Laboratory, aimed at trying to understand bias in the facial algorithm and ensure the fair and equal use of AI. The study found no statistical significance in demographic performance when certain settings are used in the live-facial recognition system.

– Simplified oversight rather than additional layers of oversight of the technology are preferred, and the right questions need to be asked to ensure appropriate use of the technology.

However, despite Lindsey Chiswick’s support for facial recognition technology, other experts have called for comprehensive biometrics regulation and a clear regulatory structure focused on police data use and AI deployment. Concerns have been raised, for example, by biometrics commissioners regarding the unlawful retention of custody images and other biometric material used to populate the watchlists. Also, various bodies, including Parliament and civil society, have called for new legal frameworks to govern law enforcement’s use of biometrics.

The government maintains that there is already a comprehensive framework in place.

The Future 

In addition to perhaps being linked up to police bodycams, possible future developments in LFR and its use could include:

– Being used to monitor anyone who wants to exercise their right to protest (as feared by right groups).

– CCTV networks of UK cities or regions could be linked up to facial recognition software.

– Being used more widely in access control systems in secure facilities, such as government buildings, airports, or corporate offices. It can provide fast and convenient identity verification, replacing traditional methods like keycards or PIN codes.

– LFR could enhance the retail experience by being used to recognise loyal customers, personalising interactions, and enabling targeted marketing campaigns based on customer profiles and preferences.

– Being used in transportation hubs, such as airports or train stations, to verify passenger identities and improve border control processes (FRT is already used). It can aid fast identification of individuals on watchlists, prevent identity fraud, and enhance security measures.

– Use in public health and safety. For example, in the wake of a global health crises, LFR could potentially be used to identify individuals who may be violating quarantine protocols or have symptoms of contagious diseases, aiding public health efforts.

– LFR may be integrated with other emerging technologies such as augmented reality, IoT (Internet of Things), or edge computing to enhance its capabilities and provide more context-aware and efficient solutions.

In terms of future developments, some areas that could see advancements include:

– Accuracy and reliability. Continued research and development efforts are aimed at improving the accuracy and reliability of LFR systems, reducing false positives and false negatives, and addressing biases related to demographics or environmental factors.

– Privacy and data protection. Future developments will likely involve implementing privacy-enhancing measures such as robust data encryption, secure storage and adherence to privacy regulations, while ensuring that LFR technologies respect individuals’ privacy rights.

– Transparency and accountability. Efforts may be made to increase transparency in LFR systems, including providing clearer explanations of how decisions are made, disclosing the sources and quality of data used, and enabling independent audits or oversight of system usage.

– Bias mitigation and fairness. Research and development will likely focus on minimising biases in LFR algorithms, ensuring fair and equitable performance across different demographic groups, and establishing methods for ongoing evaluation and auditing of algorithmic fairness.

– Ethical frameworks and regulations. As LFR technology advances, there will be an increasing need for comprehensive ethical frameworks and regulations to govern its use, addressing issues like consent, lawful deployment, and safeguards against potential misuse.

– Collaboration and standards. Industry collaboration and the establishment of standards, a regulatory structure, and best practices can contribute to the responsible development and deployment of LFR technology, ensuring interoperability, transparency, and accountability across different systems and organisations.

– Clarity about where the responsibility lies. At the moment, many bodies form part of the LFR chain, but there is no one single body with overall responsible for its use.

– Improved oversight and legal frameworks for police use of biometrics.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The case for AI-based facial recognition systems such as LFR being used in mass surveillance and predictive policing (and perhaps soon in general policing via bodycams) is supposed to help tackle crime in an intelligent, targeted way. The reality (to date) however, has been cases of misidentification, examples of racial bias, strong resistance from freedom groups on matters of privacy, questions about value for money, and questions about ethics, all of which have diminished public trust in the idea. Also, there is a strong feeling that the use and rollout of this technology has happened before the issues have been studied properly and legislation/regulations put in place to offer protection to citizens.

The current state and potential future of LFR technology have significant implications for businesses in the UK. As discussions around its adoption and regulation continue, it’s important for businesses to consider several factors.

Firstly, LFR technology for use by businesses rather than by police, holds the potential to enhance security measures and operations for businesses. By integrating it into access control systems, companies can ensure swift and efficient identity verification for employees and visitors. Additionally, linking CCTV networks with facial recognition software can enable real-time monitoring and identification of individuals, bolstering overall security protocols.

Moreover, LFR has the power to revolutionise the customer experience. By recognising loyal customers, businesses can personalise interactions, tailoring marketing campaigns to customer profiles and preferences. This heightened level of personalisation could lead to increased customer satisfaction, loyalty, and ultimately, improved sales.

However, amidst the potential benefits, businesses must also be mindful of privacy and data protection concerns. As LFR technology advances, there will likely be increased scrutiny on compliance with regulations and privacy-enhancing measures. Secure data storage, encryption, and transparent practices will be essential to address customer concerns and maintain trust.

Collaboration and the establishment of industry standards are crucial to the responsible development and deployment of LFR technology. Businesses should actively participate in discussions and contribute to shaping ethical frameworks and regulations. This collaborative effort will ensure interoperability, transparency, and accountability across different systems and organisations.

It is also important to be mindful of the impact LFR may have on protests and public sentiment. As concerns about surveillance and civil liberties arise, businesses in areas where LFR is being used may worry about the public reaction and potential damage to their premises. Businesses wanting to use LFR themselves in the future would (as the police must) need to carefully consider how their use of LFR technology may be perceived by customers, employees, and the general public.

Looking ahead, businesses should stay informed about advancements in LFR technology, such as improved accuracy, reliability, and fairness. Exploring potential applications in areas like public health and safety, transportation hubs, and augmented reality can present new business opportunities and competitive advantages.

Amidst ongoing developments, for now, matters of responsibility and oversight remain crucial issues, as does how to win public trust over the use of LFR in any capacity. The responsibility for LFR implementation and regulation is still evolving, and businesses should proactively understand the legal and ethical implications. Supporting comprehensive biometrics regulation and advocating for clear regulatory structures will help ensure the responsible use of LFR by police and other entities.

The implications of LFR technology for businesses in the UK are, therefore, multi-faceted. Careful evaluation of its benefits and risks, alignment with legal requirements, privacy considerations, and public sentiment are essential for businesses to understand this evolving landscape.