Police Use AI to Watch People in Public

Topic: AI Ethics

Police in Western Australia are testing a new system that uses live facial recognition technology in public.

This is the first time a police force in Australia has used this kind of technology, and it is being criticized by experts who care about privacy.

The police are using this system in Western Australia, and other police departments across the country are watching to see how it works.

Since the test started in June, cameras have scanned over 130,000 people in Perth and Fremantle, comparing their faces to a list of people the police are watching.

The police say the results are good, but some people are worried about the list of people being watched and where the cameras are placed, which might target certain groups of people.

The technology scans faces and compares them to a list of people the police are watching, which is kept in a van nearby.

In June, the Western Australian Police announced they would be the first police force to use live facial recognition technology on the public.

Facial recognition technology is becoming more common and includes systems that check if a face matches a particular identity, like those used to unlock phones.

It also includes systems that compare faces to a database of people, like those used in some stores to check for theft or abuse of staff.

The Privacy Commissioner found that a store called Bunnings Warehouse broke privacy rules by using facial recognition without consent in 63 of its stores.

Since June, the WA Police have been testing a more complex system like the one used in Bunnings.

Using a company called NEC's Neoface m40 product, the police scanned over 130,000 faces around Perth and Fremantle in the first week of the test.

The faces were compared to a list of about 4,000 people, including those accused of serious crimes, missing people, and people who might be a risk to themselves or others.

The police were happy with the early results, which included 33 alerts and 18 arrests.

The police say that images of people not on the list will be deleted right away and will appear blurry, even to the officers watching the system.

Out of the faces scanned in the first week, the system incorrectly identified one person as being on the list, which is a better result than a similar test in the UK in 2023.

The test has continued for several weeks, but the police won't release more data, saying it will come out later.

There are about 4,000 people on the police watchlist.

Experts say the technology has known problems with accuracy.

A professor named Jake Goldenfein said that facial recognition technologies have problems with accuracy, especially for people of color and women.

He said that these systems are trained on mostly white and male faces, which makes them less accurate for other groups.

Dr. Goldenfein said that the systems can make two kinds of mistakes: false positives, which incorrectly identify someone, and false negatives, which fail to identify someone.

When choosing the technology, the WA Police pointed to a 2023 study by the UK's National Physical Laboratory, which found no significant differences in false positives by gender or ethnicity.

But the study also found that accuracy problems increased when the system's settings were relaxed and real-world variables were introduced.

The police are monitoring the system through screens in a van nearby.

An expert named Michael Birtwisle said that Australian police can't rely on the UK's test data, especially since the technology wasn't tested on First Nations faces.

He said that the UK's test was just a snapshot and can't be applied to the Australian context.

A UK study found no significant differences in false positives by gender or ethnicity, but this might not apply to the Australian context.

The WA Police didn't answer a question about whether the technology was tested on First Nations faces before the test.

The police said they are committed to transparency and are collecting statistics throughout the test.

The test will look at demographics and see if there's a disproportionate impact on any group.

A legal service said they were left in the dark about the test.

The Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia's director, Peter Collins, said he received an email from the police asking to meet two days before the test started.

He said the consultation was just a formality and didn't provide any meaningful input.

Mr. Collins said he thought the police would want the input of the state's primary legal agency for First Nations people, given the high incarceration rates of Aboriginal people.

But he said the consultation was just a way to appear like they were doing something.

Mr. Collins said the police didn't explain whether the technology would be used to identify children.

A police spokesperson said they tried to meet with the Aboriginal Legal Service, but Mr. Collins said this was just a token effort.

The police completed a privacy impact assessment, but experts said it was inadequate.

The assessment said the test wouldn't primarily affect Aboriginal people, but experts disagreed.

Experts said there could be accuracy issues with the technology, especially for certain groups.

Peter Collins said the test was another way the WA Aboriginal community was being over-surveilled by police.

He said the technology was being rolled out in areas with high Aboriginal populations, which could lead to more Aboriginal people being caught up in the system.

He said it was easy to understand why many Aboriginal people in WA felt like they lived in a police state.

A police spokesperson said the locations were chosen based on policing needs, not to target any group.

But experts said the consultation was thin, and the bigger problem was the law guiding the technology.

A privacy expert said the consultation was inadequate, and the law needed to be amended to keep up with the technology.

The WA privacy watchdog said they weren't invited to take part in any meaningful consultation process for the test.

The watchdog launched a public warning about the dangers of such a program without proper guardrails.

The police said they briefed the watchdog in April and invited them to a demonstration, but the watchdog declined.

The police are displaying signs to let the public know that live facial recognition is in use.

The watchdog said they declined the invitation because it wasn't appropriate, given their role as an independent regulator.

Former Australian Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton said the watchdog's warning was clear.

He said the test's privacy assessment was inadequate and should have undergone a proper consultation by an independent assessor.

He said the privacy impact assessment was the cornerstone of the test, but it was just a formality.

He said it wasn't a real consultation, just a way to appear like they were doing something.

An associate professor named Hannah McGlade said she had deep concerns about the roll-out of the program, which would impact First Nations people more than others.

She said the technology was being set up in well-known Aboriginal areas, which could lead to more Aboriginal people being caught up in the system.

She said the police needed to be more transparent about who they had chosen to put on the watchlist.

She asked if the technology should be used for people who had committed minor offenses.

She said that if people were a risk to the public, there might be arguments in favor of the technology, but they just didn't know.

An expert said the UK Home Office was considering laws that would limit inclusion on facial recognition watchlists to only those who had committed serious offenses.

The police didn't respond to a question about the nature of the 16 arrests for outstanding warrants in the first week of the test.

The police said the test's results were promising, with 33 alerts and 18 arrests.

Dr. McGlade said the lack of transparency was unacceptable.

She said that if the police had nothing to hide, they should show who was being charged.

Dr. Goldenfein said the WA test could help shape how the technology was adopted elsewhere in Australia.

He said he hoped that as Australia looked at the management of AI technologies, the use of these technologies by law enforcement wouldn't escape regulatory oversight.

Other state police forces are paying close attention to the test of the technology, according to the WA Police Commissioner.

He said his colleagues in other jurisdictions were watching the test closely to see how it went.

See more ABC coverage in your search results

Practice Listening