A recent report of the Centre for Research into Information Surveillance and Privacy (CRISP), which was commissioned by the Biometric and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC), sets out some concerns about a gap in the proposed Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (Bill) that is expected to become effective in Spring 2024.
The BSCC is independent from the Government and their current role, as noted on the Gov.uk website, is to:
- “keep under review the retention and use by the police of DNA samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints;
- decide applications by the police to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints;
- review national security determinations which are made or renewed by the police in connection with the retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints;
- provide reports to the Home Secretary about the carrying out of his functions;
- encourage compliance with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice;
- review how the code is working; and
- provide advice to ministers on whether or not the code needs amending”.
Of the above functions, if the Bill is passed, the only functions of the BSCC set out above currently being proposed to be retained would be the oversight of police retaining fingerprints/DNA profiles and the review of national security determinations. The loss of the surveillance camera code has been highlighted as a retrograde step, with Alex Carmichael from the Security Systems and Alarms Inspection Board stating:
“Without the Surveillance Camera Commissioner you will go back to the old days when it was like the ‘wild west’, which means you can do anything with surveillance cameras so long as you don’t annoy the Information Commissioner…so, there will not be anyone looking at new emerging technologies, looking at their technical requirements or impacts, no one thinking about ethical implications for emerging technologies like face-recognition, it will be a free-for-all.”
CRISP states in their report:
“The current moment is a time of accelerated innovation in the scale and capability of surveillance technology. This is particularly heralded by advancements in biometric surveillance. Concerns have simultaneously arisen over surveillance technologies (and AI in general) to the extent that they have now become mainstream issues. These issues are not going to go away.
“Additional to this, are heightened challenges for policing agencies and other public bodies to regain public trust and confidence. Considering these issues together raises questions over the added impact of removing oversight at this specific time. Debates around surveillance are often, and unnecessarily, polarised and divisive. Rolling back oversight at this time is highly likely to split the debate further, making it more challenging for surveillance users to gain trust, legitimacy and support within the communities they aspire to serve.”
Comment
The Bill has not yet been approved by Parliament and accordingly, there is still time for there to be changes to it. Whether the Government will however seek to plug the gaps identified by CRISP in terms of the oversight of the handling of the retention and use of biometric and DNA information and/or the use of surveillance cameras is yet to be seen.
How can Nelsons help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in charity law, civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us