Notes of the 28th meeting held on 1 October 2024 online via MS Teams

 1. Welcome, introductions and declarations of interest

1.1. The Chair welcomed all to the meeting.

1.2. The Chair noted apologies to the attendees.

1.3. Members were invited to share any new or arising declarations of interest. No new declarations of interest were raised.

2. Minutes from previous meeting

2.1. Minutes from BFEG meeting held on 23rd July 2024 were approved without comment.

3. Actions from the previous meeting

3.1. Attendees were provided a list of outstanding actions and updates ahead of the meeting. The Chair provided an opportunity for members to raise any questions and discuss. The Chair also outlined the following actions and invited members to advise on closure.

3.2. Action 10_2021_07: Secretariat to develop a template to provide to presenters based on the BFEG ethical principles. - Secretariat has developed a template for generic submissions, this has been circulated in papers for this meeting. ACTION CLOSED

3.3. Action 12_2023_10: Secretariat to liaise with the interim Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner for an update on the cohesion of the Facial Recognition fact sheet and the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. The interim Commissioner has left the post, and we now are seeking a Ministerial decision on the Commissioner role and broader oversight arrangements. Separately, the Secretariat have revisited their communications strategy since this action and are ensuring cohesion with existing guidance. ACTION PENDING

3.4. Action 04_2024_05: Policy to report back to BFEG with information on the evidence regarding whether shoplifting crimes had become more severe and whether specific governance would be developed to cover the use of biometric technologies in the cases of such crimes. – This action relates to the previous government and as such we suggest this action is closed. We will report back once current Ministers have confirmed their priorities. ACTION CLOSED.

4. Chair’s update

4.1. Chair confirmed the new sponsor Minister for BFEG is the Lords Minister the Right Honourable Lord Hanson of Flint.

4.2. An introductory letter has been sent to the Minister and an introductory meeting is being chased for November.

4.3. Since the previous meeting, the BFEG have:

• 4.1.1. Submitted a report to the Scottish consultation on the review of biometrics retention policy.

• 4.1.2. Shared comments on the Home Office (HO) Data Service Analytics draft data ethics guidance.

• 4.1.3. Drafted a response to the College of Policing on draft Authorised Professional Practices (APPs).

• 4.1.4. Progressed work on the Policing Ethics Body’s interaction with the HO.

• 4.1.5. A meeting was held with the Data, Digital and Technology (DDaT) team on the use of the Gen AI tool on anomaly detection system.

• 4.1.6. A meeting was held with the Homeland Security Group to discuss a biosecurity exercise.

• 4.1.7. It has been proposed that the AI working group re-examine the AI charter to incorporate updates and revisions, pre-publication. The Chair will liaise with the AI Working Group Chair around this.

4.4. ACTION 24_10_#01: AI working group to revise and update AI charter before publication.

4.5. BFEG has received a request to review the HO’s draft Advanced Algorithm Adoption Policy. This will be circulated to the working group.

4.6. ACTION 24_10_#02: Secretariat to disseminate draft Advanced Algorithm Adoption policy to AI working group.

5. Policy update

5.1. The Policy representative outlined their role and clarified that, in the Policy update paper under ‘Facial recognition update’ this was slightly misworded.

5.2. They continued that further funding has been approved to understand the public perception of the ‘Policing Use of Facial Recognition Technologies’ and further work on testing of facial recognition algorithms with live or retrospective data, to ensure that the algorithms are equitable.

5.3. A member asked if there had been further conversation about the use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR), following the riots.

5.4. Officers confirmed that there is a roadmap which requires ministerial validation. The process allows ministers to consider their level of support for policing to roll out Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) and all to consider key questions such as when/how policing should use FRT. Policy’s understanding is that retrospective facial recognition was used for investigations into the riots. Live FRT played no role and there was no capacity for live FRT to work at the speed required to identify offenders.

5.5. Another BFEG member stated that some police forces have announced that LFR will be used for ‘priority’ offences, where previously this was termed ‘serious’ offences. Members requested clarity regarding the change in terms and its meaning. Additionally, they questioned if the equitability testing covers the accuracy and performance issues that may occur with the FRT.

5.6. Officers confirmed that the equitability testing is guided by International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) standards for the testing of biometrics and the methodology for the testing is set out in the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report on the NEC Global algorithm. This tests false positive rates versus correct identification rates across different demographics.

5.7. Policy also confirmed that the language for ‘priority offences’ is derived from the College of Policing’s AP and all police forces must remain compliant with the law. Policy stated that they would look into the wording change to determine if there is a substantive difference.

ACTION 24_10_03: BFEG to contact College of Policing to confirm if there is a substantive difference between ‘priority’ and ‘serious’ offences, respectively, in relation to the use of Facial Recognition Technology.

5.8.Members asked if the NPL’s advice and procedures had been updated to include AI systems?

5.9. Policy confirmed that the report on the equitability testing of the NEC algorithm was published in 2022 and that guidance is continually updated.

5.10. BFEG asked if there was a plan for equitability testing of further algorithms and if there are timescales for this.

5.11. Policy confirmed that it is planned that all algorithms paid for and enabled by the HO are tested by the NPL or an appropriately accredited independent body. This includes retrospective facial recognition algorithms. Timescales for this have not yet been agreed.

6. Data Ethics Framework (DEF) update

6.1. The Data and Identity (DI) Policy team member introduced herself and thanked BFEG members for their feedback on the draft DEF. The DI Policy team has considered these comments. The DEF was soft launched at the end of July 2024. Feedback is being captured regarding using the DEF in practice via surveys and ad hoc feedback. The aim is to launch the DEF formally alongside the alpha version of the Advanced Algorithms including AI adoption policy later in 2024. Additional resources may be produced to support the DEF such as guidance specific to business areas.

6.2. Members confirmed stated that they would send comments to the DI Policy Representative on the DEF via the Secretariat.

6.3. Action_24_10_#04: BFEG members to provide further comments on the Data Ethics Framework via the Secretariat.

6.4. The DI Policy team member continued that the Advanced Algorithms including AI Adoption Policy would be shared with BFEG for comments and responses.

6.5. BFEG questioned whether the Advanced Algorithms including AI adoption policy aligns with the new European AI Policy and the levels for AI involvement in policing, to assist with cross-border policing.

6.6.  It was confirmed that HO colleagues are being consulted to ensure that HO policy is applied consistently and as far as possible. Policy Officers confirmed that Regulatory colleagues would be contacted about the Adoption of AI policy and compliance with European regulations on the use of AI in policing and feedback would be provided to BFEG.

6.7. ACTION 24_10_#05: Data and Identity team to confirm if the Home Office’s Advanced Algorithms including AI Adoption Policy aligns with European AI regulations on the use of AI in Policing.

6.8. BFEG highlighted that the European Convention of Human Rights Standards and EU AI Act must both be incorporated into the HO’s Adoption of AI policy. Members requested an update on how these standards are being incorporated into the Adoption of AI policy.

6.9. ACTION 24_10_#06: Data and Identity team to update on how European Convention of Human Rights and the EU AI act are incorporated into the Home Office’s Adoption of AI policy.

6.10. BFEG discussed the most effective way to provide comments on documents for policy. Tracked changes with added context in comments were confirmed as the optimal way. The tracked changes would need comments to provide context and clearer understanding of the need for the changes.

6.11. Members confirmed they could provide further context to their comments on the draft DEF.

6.12. ACTION 24_10_#07: Members to send further context to comments on draft data ethics framework.

7.  Home Office Biometrics update

7.1.  The HO Biometrics (HOB) team representative provided an introduction as well as an overview and update on biometric technology across ‘Fingerprints’, ‘Face’ and ‘DNA’ and confirmed that the slides provided for his presentation would be shared with BFEG and Secretariat shortly.

7.2. ACTION 24_10_#08: Home Office Biometrics team to share slides from update with BFEG.

7.3. Officers confirmed they would liaise with Secretariat and the Chair of the HOB working group to confirm in more detail the work that is to be submitted via the HOB working group.

ACTION 24_10_#09: Secretariat to arrange meeting between Chair of Home Office Biometrics Working Group and HOB representative.

8. Office of Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (OBSCC) update

8.1. The OBSCC representative stated that following publication of an article in Wired about the use of AI in major train stations, the OBSCC reached out to National Rail, and a meeting took place to discuss National Rail’s current capabilities and future plans. A follow-up meeting is planned to gain a greater understanding of how cameras work in practice, with a potential site visit in February 2025.

8.2. The OBSCC representative also responded to an ongoing issue raised by BFEG regarding the future of the BSCC. It has yet to be decided. Work is ongoing in the same way as before the departure of Tony Eastaugh, the former BSCC.

8.3. BFEG offered support to the OBSCC and asked how they could best assist the OBSCC, especially around ethical review of policies or investigations. OBSCC were invited to reach out to BFEG as required and confirmed, if requested the BFEG could produce a statement in relation to the Wired article.

8.4. OBSCC assured that once a new Commissioner is in post and the remit of the office has been confirmed, the OBSCC will be in touch.

9. Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) update

9.1. The FINDS representative provided an update on:

• progress with updating the Missing Persons DNA Database will be upgraded onto an increasingly robust platform.
• the YSTR reference database and the expansion of the National DNA Database for YSTR capabilities, respectively.

9.2. A paper has been submitted to FINDS Strategy Board (FINDS SB) to seek approval for crime stains and subject DNA samples to be included on the National DNA Database. The FINDS Strategy Board (SB) and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners have approved this. Advice must also be sought from the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s (NPCC’s) legal team. The request has been submitted to the NPCC for their assessment. Provided the NPCC give their approval, FINDS will work with the Forensic Capability Network and start a consultation with expert networks including working with HOB on the timescale and costs of changes to the National DNA Database.

9.3. BFEG questioned how ethics approval was obtained for the samples to be provided for the YSTR reference database project.

9.4. It was confirmed that this was done on a university-by-university basis, with the samples being provided on an anonymised basis. Approval has also been granted for samples to be provided from an international YSTR database.

9.5. FINDS are currently assessing software to underpin a centralised familial searching service in partnership with other Forensic Service Providers, to ascertain if this software met all requirements. Because FINDS cannot be ISO17025 accredited, an independent panel of experts will be formed to assess if the software was validated appropriately. Terms of Reference (ToR) for the group are being drafted. FINDS and other non-UKAS accredited bodies could seek approval from this group.

9.6. Officers confirmed that BFEG is listed as a potential panel member. Officers also confirmed they will share the draft ToR and potential list of members.

9.7. ACTION 24_10_#10: FINDS representative to share draft Terms of Reference of new software approval panel and potential members list with BFEG.

10. BFEG Self-Commissioning topics for 2024/25

10.1.  The Chair outlined the potential BFEG self-commissioning projects for BFEG to choose one or two options from: ‘Deepfakes’ ‘Use of Polygraphs in Policing and Criminal Justice,’ ‘Data management and Synthetic Data,’ ‘AI registry.’

10.2. BFEG members who had submitted suggestions provided overviews on ‘Use of Polygraphs in Policing and Criminal Justice’ and ‘Synthetic Data and Data Management.’

10.3. It was clarified that ‘Data management is a separate but connected self-commissioning proposal to ‘Synthetic data.’

10.4. A BFEG member provided an overview of the ‘AI registry in Policing’ self-commissioning proposal.

10.5. Members commented that if the AI registry self-commissioning proposal goes ahead, the registry should have a field which outlines if it contains synthetic data. England and Wales can develop its own registry, but Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own systems and there are statutory requirements which will cause differences between information retention limits. The extent to which resilience is built into AI systems will be important in terms of cross-border work.

10.6. An overview of the ‘Deepfake’ self-commissioning proposal was provided.

10.7. BFEG members had a discussion around the large array of deepfake work and confirmed that a limited scope and or partner organisation would need to be found to undertake this work.

10.8. Following a vote, it was decided that ‘Synthetic data and data management’ and the ‘AI registry’ would be taken forward as two self-commissioned projects, for this commissioning year.

10.9. It was agreed that parameters and resource allocations should be confirmed for each self-commissioning project before a final product is decided upon.

10.10. ACTION 24_10_#11: Secretariat/BFEG to confirm parameters and amount of resource available before deciding on self-commissioning outputs.

11. Introduction to Home Office Ethics Champion

11.1. The Director General Home Office Ethics Champion joined the meeting to provide a brief update on her role as the Home Office ethics adviser. This responsibility is one of the corporate duties she has undertaken since joining the department.

11.2. BFEG members expressed their willingness to engage in more detailed conversations with Director General Home Office Ethics Champion outside of the meeting, and Director General Home Office Ethics Champion provided her email address for further correspondence.

11.3. ACTION 24_10_#12: Secretariat to facilitate meeting between the Director General Home Office Ethics Champion and relevant BFEG members and BFEG members to provide resources on ethics that may be of interest to the Director General Home Office Ethics Champion

12. Operation Tabula: Retention of Custody Images

12.1. The Operation (Op) Tabula representative confirmed BFEG had raised concerns around custody images previously and that this issue was highlighted in the HO Custody Image Review in 2017. The review found that there was inconsistency in how custody images were being retained across forces and there are large volumes of images which are resource-intensive to manage. In 2023, policing agreed that the Custody Image Retention and Deletion Scheme needed to be reviewed. Hence, the HO invested in the Op Tabula programme to provide a Custody Image Retention Scheme which also protects personal freedoms. The Op Tabula programme began in October 2023 and falls under the remit of DDAT Co-ordinating Committee.

12.2. The representative outlined the aims of the Op Tabula programme and the phases, the status of the Op Tabula programme, and what is out of scope for the Op Tabula Programme. The representative confirmed that the programme will consider:

• What records will be held and under what legal regime?
• What datasets will the regime be applied to and when will images be retained until/disposed of?
• How will the retention regime be operated - by whom and where? This will be explored in detail during the implementation planning phase.
• The retention scheme must be supported by an appropriate statutory framework to work effectively.

12.3. The Op Tabula representative outlined the proposed retention scheme confirming that its intention is to set up a business-as-usual approach to retention of custody image and manage retrospective images. The representative also asked the following questions:

• Is a custody image a biometric image? If so, at what point does a custody image become a biometric?

12.4. BFEG members confirmed that under the General Data Protection Act, a custody image would be considered a biometric image.

• Does the proposed retention regime balance the risk of intrusion and public confidence sufficiently?

12.5. BFEG members advised that risk of intrusion and public confidence are balanced and would like further detail provided.

ACTION 24_10_#13: Operation Tabula representative to provide BFEG members with further information on how the risk of intrusion and public confidence are balanced within Operation Tabula.

• The Op Tabula representative asked if BFEG would consider it useful for the programme to return to present their findings of the detailed discovery work with forces? This is anticipated to be in Feb/March of 2025.

12.6. BFEG members requested updates from the Op Tabula representative.

12.7. The Operation Tabula representative provided their contact details for BFEG to share any other relevant information.

12.8. ACTION 24_10_#14: Operation Tabula representative to update BFEG members on the status of Op Tabula at the January 2025 quarterly meeting.

13. Closing remarks and AOB

In the interest of time, it was decided to table other agenda items for the closed session.

Annex A – List of attendees and apologies

Present (BFEG Members)

• Professor Mark Watson-Gandy (Chair)
• Mr David Lewi
• Professor Richard Guest
• Professor Niamh Nic Daeid
• Dr Nóra Ni Loideain
• Professor Emeritus Charles Raab
• Professor Thomas Sorell
• Professor Denise Syndercombe Court
• Professor Ann-Maree Farrell
• Dr Peter Waggett
• Giles Herdale
• Dr Matt James
• Professor Penney Lewis
• Ms Elisabeth Mackay
• Dr Malcolm Oswald
• Professor Marion Oswald
•  Matt James

Apologies

• Professor Sarah Morris

Present (Home Office (HO) officials and Stakeholders)

• Forensic Information Database Service, HO
• BFEG Secretariat, HO 
• Data and Identity Policy Representatives, HO
• Representative from Data Ethics Framework team (DEF)
• Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (OBSCC) representatives
• Director General Home Office Ethics Champion
• Home Office Biometrics Programme representatives

Annex B – Open, Pending, on hold actions

December 2023

Action 1: Secretariat to arrange and organise a lunch and learn session(s) to be delivered to the Home Office.

Action 7: Secretariat to draft a Memorandum of Understanding, to support working relationship between ACE and BFEG, and arrange a meeting with ACE to progress.

April 2024

Action 6: BFEG ACE lead to draft a document outlining BFEG’s capabilities to be shared with ACE and inform them on what BFEG can support with.

Action 7: Secretariat to develop a plan to establish how BFEG and ACE engagement should be conducted going forward.

Action 9: FIGG to provide the IGG DPIA to BFEG once completed and update BFEG on exactly what input they are seeking into their DPIA.

July 2024

Action 1: FINDS to provide update on progress with YSTR to next meeting including Legal update and Database capabilities.

Action 2: FINDS to provide update on progress regarding the familial searching capability and address concerns raised by BFEG members

 October 2024

Action 1: Members to provide comments on the BFEG submission template.

Action 10: FINDS representative to share draft Terms of Reference of new software approval panel and potential members list with BFEG.