Privacy advocates have called for tighter restrictions on the use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology by police forces, warning that current practices risk enabling “lazy policing” and potential misuse. The technology, which compares images captured by cameras in real time against watchlists of wanted individuals, has been deployed increasingly in London and other parts of the UK, but it currently operates without specific legislation governing its application.

LFR systems function by matching faces detected in public spaces against curated databases containing photographs of suspects, persons wanted by courts, or individuals subject to legal conditions. When a positive match is made, officers are alerted to stop and investigate the individual. Images of those not on watchlists are automatically deleted within seconds, according to police statements.

Jasleen Chaggar, senior legal and policy officer at Big Brother Watch, criticized the broad discretion police have in determining who is included on these lists. Speaking at a town hall event in Brixton organized by the civil liberties coalition Safety Not Surveillance, she highlighted the absence of clear safeguards as a major concern. “The rules are so permissive that forces can put associates of suspects and missing people on their watchlists,” Chaggar said. “If there are no safeguards on who can go on the watchlists, you can see how ripe that is for misuse — the threshold is incredibly low.” She urged for “a very restrictive policy” limiting the circumstances and criteria under which individuals can be added.

Since the beginning of the year, the Metropolitan Police have deployed LFR technology more than 250 times across London, resulting in at least 1,227 arrests, according to official data. At the Notting Hill Carnival in west London last month, there were nearly 18,700 faces on LFR watchlists, with only one confirmed false positive reported.

In June, Scotland Yard outlined plans to expand the use of static LFR cameras in nightlife and shopping districts such as Soho and the West End. The UK government has also pledged increased investment to roll out facial recognition technology nationwide, citing public safety concerns.

Police officials maintain that their use of LFR complies with existing legal frameworks, including the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, and the Data Protection Act. A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said watchlists are strictly limited to individuals wanted by police or courts or those under court-imposed supervision, with all other biometric data deleted swiftly and permanently.

The Home Office emphasized that watchlists are tailored to specific policing objectives and are reviewed before each deployment to ensure proportionality and necessity. Officials indicated plans to introduce dedicated legislation that will clarify the legal parameters for police use of facial recognition technology, aiming to bolster public trust and operational confidence.

The debate over LFR followed a High Court ruling earlier this year in which privacy campaigners Shaun Thompson and Silkie Carlo challenged the Metropolitan Police’s use of the technology, arguing it risks arbitrary or discriminatory application. The court upheld the police’s position, a decision described by Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley as “a significant and important victory for public safety.”