Public or Private Eye?

26 August 2025

From policing to retail aisles: facial recognition is expanding – but how will the balance be struck between innovation and oversight?

On 13 August 2025, the Home Office announced a significant expansion of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in policing, unveiling 10 new LFR-equipped vans across seven police forces as part of its Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee. These vans, operating under strict College of Policing guidance, aim to identify high-harm offenders—wanted criminals and suspects for the most serious offences including sexual offences, violent assaults, homicide and serious and organised crime.

Early deployments by the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have already demonstrated success with the former reporting 580 arrests in 12 months using LFR for offences including rape, domestic abuse, knife crime, GBH and robbery, as well as 52 registered sex offences arrested for breaching their conditions. These represent policing priority offences as well as some of those that most concern the public. Also of concern to the public, however, is the potential reach – or overreach – of this technology, its impact on civil liberties and potential for discrimination. The Home Office was at pains to emphasise that the facial recognition algorithm used in the new vans has been independently tested for bias by the National Physical Laboratory, with tests finding no bias in terms of ethnicity, age or gender at the settings used by police.

By way of further reassurance, alongside the rollout, ministers announced the launch, in the autumn, of a national consultation to design a formal legal framework for LFR. This process will invite input from law enforcement bodies, technology experts, civil liberties groups and the public on the lawful scope of use of the technology and appropriate safeguards and protections. The challenge will be devising a framework that balances competing public interests such as the public interest in the prevention and detection of crime and disorder and public safety versus the public interest in privacy.

In the meantime, on the day of the Home Office announcement, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) made what might be seen as an interim statement of reassurance, explaining how data protection law already applies to the use of the technology:

“Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) does not operate in a legal vacuum. It is covered by data protection law, which requires any use of personal data, including biometric data, to be lawful, fair and proportionate. When used by the police, FRT must be deployed in a way that respects people’s rights and freedoms, with appropriate safeguards in place.

“FRT is a priority for the ICO due to its potential benefits and risks. We play an important role ensuring police are compliant with data protection law and that people’s rights are protected, including by providing clear guidance on the use of FRT and undertaking regular audits of police forces, so that the public can have confidence in how the technology is used. We have recently concluded our audit of South Wales Police and Gwent Police and will be sharing our findings shortly.”

Demonstrating that oversight is being strengthened, on 20 August 2025, the ICO published the findings of this audit, finding compliance with data protection legislation and the requirements of necessity and proportionality for deployments. Strengths included the use of human oversight in LFR operations, comprehensive Data Protection Impact Assessments, and quick deletion of non-matches, as well as transparency and accountability in use of the police use of the technology. Areas for improvement included better documentation and enhanced training to ensure understanding of legal and ethical responsibilities.

In parallel to developments in law enforcement’s use of LFR, it appears that retailers are increasingly using facial recognition to curb shoplifting and protect staff. Asda has been piloting a live facial recognition system in five Greater Manchester stores, integrated with their CCTV network and alerting security instantly upon matching previously flagged individuals. On 21 May 2025, Big Brother Watch issued a press release indicating it had filed a complaint with the ICO, arguing that Asda’s use of LFR cameras in its supermarkets is unlawful and poses significant risks to shoppers’ rights and freedoms. It urged the ICO to investigate and halt the trial.

Retailers may be investing heavily in anti-theft technologies, AI-powered surveillance and facial recognition to reduce retail crime and improve staff safety but, as yet, the private sector has not been subject to the same legal scrutiny as law enforcement (see R (Bridges) v South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058). Deploying these types of technology may be very effective but it also raises ethical and legal issues including risks of misidentification and intrusions upon data and privacy rights such that there are calls for stronger regulation across both the public and private sectors.

As facial recognition becomes more entrenched in both policing and commerce, the UK faces an ongoing dilemma as to how relevant technologies can be deployed to enhance safety without sacrificing civil liberties or public trust. The autumn consultation will be a key step in addressing the challenges.