Met Police challenged on claim LFR supported by ‘majority of Lewisham residents’

[Pelican Press 0]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Met Police challenged on claim LFR supported by ‘majority of Lewisham residents’

The Metropolitan Police has claimed its live facial-recognition (LFR) deployments in Lewisham are supported by the majority of residents and local councillors, but a community impact assessment (CIA) obtained by Computer Weekly shows there has been minimal direct consultation with residents, while elected officials continue to express concern.

In August 2024, Lewisham councillors complained there had been no engagement with the local community ahead of the controversial technology being deployed in the area, with the Met announcing the tech would be used in Tweet just a month after being urged by councillors to improve its community engagement around LFR.

Responding to Computer Weekly’s questions about the concerns raised by Lewisham councillors, a Met Police spokesperson said at the time that its LFR deployments “have been very much supported by the majority of Lewisham residents, business owners and political representatives – namely Lewisham councillors”.

The spokesperson added that over the previous six months, the force had delivered “more than six briefings at a mixture of public forums, private council and independent advisory group sessions” to explain what its LFR deployments entail and to answer all enquiries posed by committee members.

However, according to the CIA obtained under freedom of information (FoI) rules by Computer Weekly, the only mention of “residents” in the entire document is when detailing the press response given to Computer Weekly.

Despite the Met claiming its LFR deployments are supported by the majority of residents, the CIA also explicitly notes “there is mixed opinion for the operation within the community”, adding that while there is nothing to suggest there would any form of “disorder/criminality in relation” to the deployment, “there is likely to be some opposition”.

In terms of actual engagement conducted by the Met, the CIA notes the force held seven meetings between March and August 2024, including five with various council bodies, and two sets of public discussions: one at the “New Met for London event held at the Albany in Deptford”, and another held in relation to the Met’s “London Race Action Plan”.

The council bodies engaged with included a select committee tasked with scrutinising LFR deployments, the Lewisham Independent Advisory Group (IAG) for LFR, and the Safer Neighbourhoods Board (SNB).

“Members of the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee urged improved communication with residents concerning LFR deployments, as well as a need to increase stakeholder engagement,” the committee told Computer Weekly in response to the CIA document.

Many councillors are on record (

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

) calling for improved communication with residents and stakeholders, noting there has been minimal stakeholder engagement regarding LFR deployments thus far.

Expressing her own views on the matter, independent councillor and Safer Stronger select committee member Hau-Yu Tam – who previously stressed the need to give local people the ability to scrutinise the Met’s approach – told Computer Weekly she is personally only aware of one instance of consultation between the Met and Lewisham’s SNB, the boroughs independent forum for community engagement with the police.

The CIA document confirms there has been one formal meeting with the SNB recorded, which took place on 26 March 2024.

“Policing is touted as being legitimised by community consent, so they tick the box of community consultation, but it doesn’t take much digging to find that the consultation is extremely poor,” she said, adding that the effectiveness of the consultation is limited by the fact that “not a lot of people get consulted”, and the use of leading questions by the Met when they talk to people about the technology, which are designed to sell LFR to the public, rather than understand and act on the areas of concern.

People who would be hurt or harmed by LFR don’t have the means to access the consultation, nor are their views really allowed to be registered
Hau-Yu Tam, Lewisham Council

“It’s similar to a lot of large public institutions, including Lewisham Council, in that consultation is undertaken poorly because communities are not engaged. Above all, budget cuts – including to communities – are being passed down, with the political and executive leadership failing to formulate alternatives or even to believe alternatives can be possible.

An example of the leading nature of the Met’s engagement process is shown by an email to an SNB member (not recorded in the CIA), which has been shared with Computer Weekly. In it, a Met police officer explains that local policing teams are proposing to run an LFR operation in the area, highlighting only the benefits of the technology.

“This is used to identify individuals who are sought by police in relation to ongoing investigations – with a focus on violence against women and girls. Previously, this has been extremely successful in other local boroughs – e.g. identifying an individual who was sought for a serious domestic violence incident and had been evading police by changing appearance,” they said.

“Facial-recognition technology is a very valuable tool to help to catch perpetrators of crime that impact individuals and communities. Is this something that you think is a good idea, and would support? We appreciate your comments.”

Tam said the email shows the Met framing LFR solely around the prevention of violence against women and girls in a way that would appeal to the recipient, because “obviously” they would express support in that context.

She added that the biggest issue is the lack of mechanisms in place for dealing with critical comments about LFR: “What people support is safer streets and improved equity and community cohesion. They don’t necessarily support live facial recognition, which they’re not given the full rundown of, or they’re given very misleading information about.”

She further added that while the Met does seek input from legitimate voices, the same sorts of voices are over-represented: “People who would be hurt or harmed by LFR don’t have the means to access the consultation, nor are their views really allowed to be registered.”

Tam said that while the Met may have formally engaged with the SNB on LFR issues, many members of that body have raised concerns around the use of LFR by police, adding: “There’s a lot of trepidation about this.”

Met responds

Computer Weekly contacted the Met about the CIA process and every aspect of the story.

“The Met is committed to making London safer, using data and technology to help identify offenders that pose a risk to our communities,” said Lindsey Chiswick, the force’s director of performance. “We continue to engage with and listen to views from a range of voices across Lewisham on our use of LFR technology, including local residents, councillors, local businesses and retailers.”

A spokesperson for the force added that the Met is committed to transparency and community engagement in its use of LFR technology, which they described as a key tool for enhancing public safety that also enables police to identify individuals wanted for serious offences while minimising disruption to the wider public.

“Officers have conducted extensive engagement with the Lewisham community, including local residents, councillors, businesses, and advisory groups,” they said. “These sessions provide an open platform for discussion, allowing us to explain how LFR works, the intelligence-led process behind deployments, and the safeguards in place to protect privacy and human rights. We also share data, such as the number of arrests, other outcomes and false-positive alerts, to ensure accountability and transparency.

“We understand the concerns raised by some community members and are committed to listening to all voices, including those critical of LFR. Engagement is intended to be inclusive, and we work with independent advisory groups [IAGs] and community leaders to reach those who may not always have access to formal consultation processes.

“Our focus is on ensuring the safety of London’s streets while maintaining open, honest dialogue about the use of LFR technology.”

Civil society reacts

Responding to the contents of the CIA, Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officer at human rights group Liberty, said: “Facial-recognition technology effectively enables the police to identify and track anyone they choose. But instead of reaching out to the residents of Lewisham on the impacts of this dangerous surveillance tech, the Met has redefined ‘community engagement’ as speaking to high-level officials. 

“The real community impact of facial recognition is that our privacy is undermined, our movement restricted, and our risk of being subjected to a false stop from a dodgy algorithm is increased as we just go about our lives. None of these were addressed within the assessment as the Met Police continue to push forward this unknown and unchecked technology.”

He added that the huge power LFR grants police is particularly concerning after years of high-profile scandals involving violent, racist and sexist police forces in the ***: “The government must urgently introduce safeguards to restrict the use of this invasive technology and for the police to recognise the true impact on the communities they are spying upon.” 

Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, added that it is hard to evaluate the efficacy of the Met’s community engagement in Lewisham because the CIA is so light on detail: “It doesn’t demonstrate very good engagement at all.”

Instead of reaching out to the residents of Lewisham … the Met has redefined ‘community engagement’ as speaking to high-level officials
Charlie Whelton, Liberty

Echoing sentiments from Tam that the CIA is a box-ticking exercise, he further added that because there is so little genuine community engagement over LFR with people who live in Lewisham, the engagement process becomes a “rubber stamp” for the Met’s continued deployments.

“To be honest, do it properly or don’t bother,” he said, adding that the way the Met has characterised its engagement with councillors is also an issue. “We’re in conversation with councillors and a lot of them aren’t happy.”

According to a spokesperson for Lewisham Council, the local authority “will continue to carefully monitor its implementation in our borough and will continue to engage with the police and other local authorities where it’s being used”.

Hurfurt concluded that for there to be meaningful community engagement, the process needs to be done without “the Met’s thumb on the scale” by limiting its consultation to mostly high-level council meetings and officials.

“You have to properly consult people, giving them a chance to object, to raise concerns and listen to them, rather than tick a box… there’s a chance this undermines trust in the police if it’s not done properly,” he said, adding that while a number of local authorities have passed motions that express their opposition to the police deployment of LFR in their boroughs, “it’s been deployed anyway.”

In January 2023, for example, Newham Council unanimously passed a motion to suspend the use of LFR throughout the borough until biometric and anti-discrimination safeguards are in place.

While the motion highlighted the potential of LFR to “exacerbate racist outcomes in policing” – particularly in Newham,

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

– both the Met and the Home Office said that they would press forward with the deployments anyway.

“As part of the authorisation process and before any deployment, a specific community impact assessment is completed by the local BCU [Basic Command Unit],” said a Met police spokesperson at the time. “This assessment involves speaking to a wide number of local groups so that policing is informed of those views and can take those into consideration before any decision to deploy is made.”

The Met’s own 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 states it “may be appropriate to pursue engagement opportunities with a number of stakeholders” prior to any deployments taking place.

Chiswick, speaking as the Met’s then-director of intelligence, has also previously told Lords that LFR is “a precision-based, community crime-fighting tool”, adding in a later session that because of a lack of support for police among specific community groups, there would need to be engagement with them prior to any LFR deployments to quell any fears people might have.

“You get told there’s all this engagement by the Met, but they’re just cracking on,” said Hurfurt.

On 13 November 2024, MPs held their first-ever debate on the police use of LFR technology, eight years after the Met first deployed the technology at Notting Hill Carnival in August 2016.

MPs – including members of both front benches – discussed a range of issues associated with the technology, including the impacts of LFR surveillance on privacy; problems around bias, accuracy and racial discrimination; the lack of a clear legal framework governing its use by police; and how its wider roll-out could further reduce people’s dwindling trust in police.

While there were differences of opinion about the efficacy of LFR as a crime-fighting tool, MPs largely agreed there are legitimate concerns around its use by police, with a consensus emerging on the need for proper regulation of the technology.

The majority of MPs involved in the debate openly lamented why there had been no debate about the use of the technology by police up until now.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

#Met #Police #challenged #claim #LFR #supported #majority #Lewisham #residents

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up