Glasgow councillors' fears over facial recognition tech
FRT has been used in various community contexts, including protests, sporting events, concerns as well as busy shopping streets.
During Thursday's full council meeting, a motion was presented to councillors over the legal challenges regarding the use of FRT following the result of the Ed Bridges' case where the Court of Appeal said the South Wales Police's use of live facial recognition (LFR) violated privacy rights and broke data protection and equality laws.
In 2017, Police Scotland said its initial ambition was to introduce LFR in 2026 as part of their 10-year strategy 'Policing 2026' but decided in 2020 not to advance this after a report by the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing stated that there was 'no justifiable basis for Police Scotland to invest in the technology'.
Councillors have been made aware that while the Scottish Police Authority is not consulting on the introduction of LFR it is debating its potential introduction on whether or not the work should be taken forward.
Following a Freedom of Information request in March 2025, it has been confirmed that Police Scotland is considering enhancing CCTV resources with the introduction of Briefcam's object matching software, which also has capabilities to match faces live.
Police Scotland has stated they will not use this element of the technology if updated.
READ MORE: Poor quality photos 'could lead to crimes not being solved'
READ MORE: Send us photos of your June newborn to appear in Glasgow Times
Speaking about her motion, Bailie Martha Wardrop said: 'Police Facial Recognition technology is being discussed by residents who are concerned about the impact it will have on their civil liberties and democratic freedoms.
'It has to be acknowledged that this technology challenges democratic principles and carries out mass identity checks on everyone in real time regardless of any suspicion on them.
'This is described as the equivalent of police stopping every passerby to check DNA or fingerprints. It gives police extraordinary power to identify and track people without knowledge or consent.
'This can bring about an erosion of the fundamental right to be presumed innocent. The use of this technology completely changes policing. Instead of investigating after a reasonable cause to do so, this technology treats everyone as a potential suspect undermining privacy and civic freedoms.
'There is also concern about the technology being built on flawed discriminatory data and this results in disproportionately targeting of black, marginalised groups, migrants and low-income communities.
'Rather than making our communities safer, evidence suggests that this technology will reinforce racism and criminalise poverty.'
Glasgow City Council has now vowed to work with the police to ensure that use of the technology is fit for purpose, non-discriminatory and respects the rights of Glasgow citizens.
Council leader Susan Aitken will now write to the Chair of the Scottish Police Authority to indicate their view and these factors be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to progress with trials or implementation of live FRT.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
31 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Palestine Action to make Court of Appeal bid at evening hearing over terror ban
Palestine Action will head to the Court of Appeal hours before a ban against it is due to come into force, to challenge a High Court judge's refusal to temporarily block it from being designated as a terror group. Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move was to come into force at midnight after High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. But lawyers on behalf of the group will now bring their case to the Court of Appeal in a bid to challenge the decision at a hearing due to begin at 8pm on Friday. At a short, urgent preliminary appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr asked Raza Husain KC, representing Ms Ammori: 'If this matter is going ahead, you need a decision from us by then, do you?' Mr Husain replied: 'Indeed.' Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, said the hearing would last an hour, refusing a bid to extend it to 90 minutes. She said: 'We're less than five hours away, we've got to make our minds up on what we've got.' The head of the judiciary in England and Wales added: 'Both sides, if there was any prospect of an appeal, ought to have had all of these matters well in hand, if you were going to come to the Court of Appeal and ask for a decision by midnight. 'We are here now. We will do our best.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ms Ammori said that she would be 'seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making'. She added: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.'
Western Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Palestine Action ban would have free speech ‘chilling effect', appeal court told
Earlier on Friday Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block, however lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening. Proscribing the group under anti-terror laws would make membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison (Lucy North/PA) In his decision refusing the temporary block, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, said that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action. 'He had evidence before him of the evidence on possible employment rights and education rights and the right to liberty and he failed properly to determine that the balance of convenience fell in the claimant's favour.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. The barrister added: 'He failed to consider that the proscription regime was not necessary in a democratic society, because it wasn't proportionate to the aims sought, because there were alternative methods available to prevent the serious damage to property that was an issue.' Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, said that they hoped to give a judgment on the appeal shortly after 10pm. Baroness Carr said: 'We will have a decision for you before midnight.'
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Boy's sentence for killing 80-year-old Bhim Kohli to be reviewed
Bhim Kohli called out for help when he was attacked in Franklin Park, Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on September 1 last year. He died the next day with a spinal cord injury and fractured ribs. Last month, Mr Justice Turner sentenced a boy, aged 15, who punched and kicked Mr Kohli, to seven years in custody, and a 13-year-old girl, who encouraged the attack by filming parts of it while laughing, to a three-year youth rehabilitation order. Both children, who cannot be named because of their age, denied their crimes but were convicted by a jury at Leicester Crown Court. A spokesperson for the Attorney General's Office said the case will be reviewed under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The spokesperson said in a statement: 'The Solicitor General, Lucy Rigby KC MP, was appalled by this violent, cowardly attack on an innocent man. 'She wishes to express her deepest sympathies to Bhim Kohli's friends and family at this difficult time. 'After undertaking a detailed review of the case, the Solicitor General concluded the sentence of the 15-year-old boy could be referred to the Court of Appeal. 'The court will determine if the sentence is increased or not.' Mr Kohli's daughter spoke of feeling 'angry and disappointed', adding that she believes their sentences do not 'reflect the severity of the crime they committed'. In a statement after the sentencing hearing, Susan Kohli said: 'When they are released, they still have their full lives ahead of them. They can rebuild their lives. We can't.' Mid Leicestershire MP Peter Bedford and the MP for South Leicestershire, Alberto Costa, wrote to the AGO last month asking for the sentences to be reviewed. It is understood the sentence of the 13-year-old girl will not be referred to the Court of Appeal as the threshold had not been met. A six-week trial heard that Mr Kohli's children found him lying on the ground in agony when he told his daughter that he had been called a 'P***' during the attack. The boy said in his evidence he had a 'tussle' with Mr Kohli over his slider shoe before he slapped the elderly man with it out of 'instinct', which caused the pensioner to fall to his knees, but denied kicking or punching him. In a letter written by the boy to a woman who had worked with him at the residential unit where he was being looked after, he wrote: 'I f****** hate what I did. I regret it so much. 'I have flashbacks of that day and it just upsets me. I kinda just needed anger etc releasing.' The girl had filmed a series of video clips in which the elderly man was hit with the shoe by the balaclava-clad boy and another where Mr Kohli lay motionless on the ground. She was heard laughing in the video clips which she kept in a passcode protected Snapchat folder. In his sentencing remarks last month, Mr Justice Turner said: 'I am sure Mr Kohli did nothing at all to deserve what you did. What you did was wicked. 'You made a cowardly and violent attack on an elderly man.'
