Corporate report

BFEG meeting minutes: 11 April 2024

Updated 17 January 2025

Notes of the 26th meeting held on 11th April 2024 online via Microsoft Teams.

Note of Meeting

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. A full list of attendees and apologies can be viewed in annex A.

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 15th December 2023 were approved without comment.

3 Actions from 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.

3.2 Regarding action 4, from July 2023 (copied below), the Biometric Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC) confirmed their team had developed a risk and issues log which outlined strategic and operational issues that could arise. This had been shared with Home Office colleagues, and it was noted that certain risks could be mitigated effectively, while others would require more work. The BSCC agreed to share this document with BFEG.

Action 4, July 2023: BFEG members to provide policy with a list of their concerns regarding the lack of oversight and ethical governance for facial recognition, following the abolition of the Biometrics Surveillance Camera Commissioner.

3.3 A member of BFEG asked whether BFEG could input other risks into the log and sight of this was requested. The BSCC was comfortable that the risk capturing was comprehensive but was content for BFEG to input if they wished.

3.4 Concerns were also raised about the UK rolling back oversight while other EU nations were expanding this.

3.5 It was agreed that Action 4 would remain open.

3.6 Action 1: The BSCC to ask the appropriate Home Office team to share the risk and issues log with BFEG.

3.7 Regarding action 5, from July 2023 (copied below), the BSCC was to meet the Director of Intelligence shortly after the meeting and offered to facilitate BFEG engagement if needed.

Action 5, July 2023: Members to collate questions for a meeting with Director of Intelligence at the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

3.8 A member of BFEG highlighted one reason for meeting the Director of Intelligence was related to the oversight of the Policing Ethics Body pilot (PEB) as the Director had previously raised questions over this.

4 Chair’s update

4.1 An updated version of the BFEG Terms of Reference (ToR) had been circulated as a paper and needed agreement prior to upload to website. Secretariat would be incorporating any comments as they were received.

4.2 The BFEG 2024/25 commissioning letter had been received and needed to be reviewed.

4.3 The BFEG 2023/24 annual report was being finalised and was to be distributed for BFEG review prior to being shared with Ministers.

4.4 The Chair confirmed approval had been given by the Minister to appoint six new members to BFEG who were currently undergoing security checks and should be in post by the next BFEG meeting.

4.5 Consideration was being given to the makeup of BFEG and its working group structure. The chair outlined a series of events which had taken place since the last quarterly meeting, these are listed below:

• A roundtable event between BFEG and its policy sponsor to discuss Home Office priorities and the yearly commission.

• The BFEG Chair had attended the quarterly Home Office Science Advisory Committee (HOSAC) meeting representing BFEG.

• The Secretariat had attended the Facial Recognition Showcase on behalf of BFEG.

• Members attended an event on Data Ethics Committees in Policing held by the Alan Turing Institute in March.

• BFEG Chair had attended a justice roundtable on the independent use of disclosure, including the use of technology and artificial intelligence (AI).

• Members attended a workshop on deepfakes held by the Accelerated Capability Environment (ACE) in March. It had been suggested that further engagement would happen on this topic with a dedicated meeting between BFEG and the organisers.

• BFEG was present at the Home Office Science Advisory Committees Stand at the Security and Policing Exhibition Event, 12-14th March.

4.6 In addition to the above, the chair updated BFEG on work progress of the Biometric Recognition Technologies (BRT) working group which had held evidence gathering sessions in January on biometric and forensic voice and gait recognition technologies.

4.7 A member of BFEG questioned whether there could be a mechanism for tracking the impact of BFEG presence at engagements such as the above.

4.8 The BFEG Secretary noted that the Secretariat were trying to catalogue requests from external parties for BFEG to attend events. It was also noted that as part of the formal submission process for internal Home Office teams submitting commissions to BFEG teams would be asked to agree to providing updates on how BFEG’s input had helped them 6-12 months after engagement.

4.9 BFEG members outlined the importance of raising awareness first and not immediately being concerned by impact measurement. It was also suggested that the measures of impact needed defining.

4.10 There was agreement in the need for developing a mechanism for defining and measuring impact. The importance of focusing on long-term impact rather than short-term was also noted.

4.11 A member of BFEG highlighted the external impact of BFEG, citing an Ada Lovelace report on biometric systems that BFEG was given credit for supporting.

4.12 The need to monitor the activities BFEG take on was mentioned, to ensure all work is in scope and BFEG have the capacity to handle everything.

4.13 The BSCC asked for more detail on the £230m+ investment into facial recognition and biometrics and whether BFEG could input on how the money was spent. The Policy representative responded that they did not work on that area but agreed to pass the question on to relevant parties.

4.14 Action 2: Policy to update BFEG on how the investment into facial recognition and biometrics was being spent, what the spend would be on governance, and whether there was scope for input from BFEG.

4.15 A member of BFEG asked for support in translating funding into the development of ethics governance for new biometric systems.

5 Home Office Biometrics (HOB) update

5.1 Representatives for HOB could not attend but submitted a paper in absence.

5.2 No comments were raised in relation to the submitted paper.

6 Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) update

6.1 Representatives for FINDS presented an update on the FINDS Y-STR project.

6.2 FINDS were creating phase 1 of the Y-STR database. The FINDS representative informed BFEG that 10,000 samples were needed, with 1,000 collected so far, predominantly from police forces. It noted this uptake had been slower than expected, citing ongoing difficulty with getting into organisations to sample without ethical endorsements.

6.3 A member of BFEG noted that they had submitted an ethics application through their university which had been approved pending a couple of clarifications, although this was for using samples that were already held rather than a new sampling event.

6.4 The FINDS representative noted that a postal sample service trial had been established, and 25 samples had been received. Prior to roll-out, work was needed to review whether the additional time needed to process samples was not detrimental, and that, if successful, this would be promoted further.

6.5 It was outlined to BFEG that phase 2 (the research phase) of the database was being considered with engagement from academics and consultation with expert network groups. The plan was to shortly begin commissioning this work subject to a funding agreement.

6.6 Finally, the FINDS representative noted work had begun with the Home Office to determine whether Y-STR samples could be stored on the National DNA Database and that consultation was underway to see if legislative changes were needed to achieve this for routine processing. Once this was done, BFEG and the National DNA Database Strategy Board would be consulted.

7 Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (OBSCC) update

7.1 The BSCC noted that the Data Protection and Digital Information (DPDI) Bill was still progressing through Parliament, and thought it was likely to be enacted in July or August.

7.2 BFEG were informed that lots of engagement was occurring with the third sector (suppliers and front-line delivery) of biometric systems and many expressed concerns about the lack of governance going forward with the abolition of the OBSCC.

7.3 The BSCC outlined the Government’s view was that this would be principles driven but highlighted that much of Europe were currently increasing oversight in this area while the UK appeared to be rolling this back.

7.4 Some of the BSCC’s current work was related to national security and this was to be taken on by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO).

7.5 The BSCC shared that they had met representatives at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who were seeking to identify how they would take on responsibility for oversight of the technology from the OBSCC. It was noted by the BSCC that the ICO considered biometric imaging technology as data and that any abuse of this data would enable the ICO to get involved. It was highlighted that concerns existed relating to who would conduct inspections and scrutiny on a regular basis and prevent violations from occurring from the outset.

7.6 The BSCC had worked closely with the British Transport Police, Metropolitan Police and Scottish Police and was reassured that while there was uncertainty regarding the impact of governance changes, those involved with frontline delivery of facial recognition were seeking to deploy this in an ethical manner.

7.7 A member of BFEG noted that at a recent FINDS meeting, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner raised a concern that the lack of governance in England could cause issues for Scotland which had strict governance on data storage, and that the changes in the new bill could impact the relationship between the devolved nations.

7.8 BFEG members expressed concern about characterising facial recognition as regular data processing and suggested that many more legal and ethical nuances existed with facial recognition. Another member echoed these concerns and commented that they hoped that this statement was made in the context of biometric data processing falling within the remit of the ICO. The BSCC thought this was correct.

7.9 The BSCC suggested most of those who work with the technology were concerned about a lack of framework and guidelines to help guide them use the technology ethically. It was also noted that there was an inevitability of rogue parties working in an undesirable way.

7.10 A member of BFEG cited an Alan Turing Institute report that outlined concerns of key stakeholders including practitioners and the third sector over the lack of oversight and governance of biometric surveillance technologies if the OBSCC were abolished.

8 Biometrics policy and AI update

8.1 The DPID Bill was progressing through Parliament. The Bill set out plans to transfer the functions of the OBSCC to IPCO.

8.2 The Bill was presently in committee stage, and it was expected that the clauses relevant to the work of BFEG and the Policy Sponsor would be reviewed following the Easter recess.

9 AI and data ethics policy

9.1 The AI Adoption Policy had been developed and was ready for internal review by the Home Office AI community.

9.2 It was noted that BFEG would be given sight of this policy once the Home Office had reviewed it.

9.3 Action 3: Home Office AI Adoption Policy to be provided to BFEG.

9.4 The aim was to ensure Home Office personnel were aware of their responsibilities when developing and deploying advanced algorithms, including AI, and maintain a culture of responsible AI use by design.

9.5 It was highlighted that the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) was being made a mandatory standard for Government departments in response to the AI white paper. The plan was to phase this in during 2024 then expand to the wider public sector (including policing) in future. The Policy representative shared they would be acting as the Home Office point of contact to work with the Central Digital and Data Office to implement this.

9.6 It was noted by the Policy representative that the intention for the coming months was to map out the algorithmic tools that fell within scope of the ATRS and determine which could be published on GOV.UK. It was also noted that the ATRS would only apply to algorithmic tools that had already been deployed, while teams working on developing new tools would be encouraged to think about where ATRS records could be completed. The ambition was for each department to publish at least 1 record by the end of June, with further expected over the coming months.

9.7 The Chair asked for policy comment on the 2024/25 BFEG commissioning brief which had been received.

9.8 The response from the Policy representative was as follows. On facial recognition, an ask had been made for BFEG to support the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) on using non-policing databases for facial recognition searches and development of a facial recognition framework. On AI, the ask to BFEG was to provide advice on trialling new technologies, including what it would take to practically implement AI tools into Home Office business processes. Advice would also be sought on high-risk impact algorithms, Home Office AI adoption policy and the review of key ethical documents such as the Home Office Data Ethics Framework. On biometrics, BFEG would be asked to look at strategic matching and HOB programme delivery. On FINDS, BFEG would be asked to look at the missing persons DNA database upgrade and the Y-STR capability project.

9.9 Action 4: Policy to provide a detailed breakdown of what the requests within the commissioning brief would include and when BFEG can expect these requests, to facilitate project and programme management of the yearly commission.

9.10 A member of BFEG questioned the retail crime crackdown statement which the Prime Minister had made the previous day, alongside funding to achieve this. The member asked what evidence there was to indicate a shift had occurred from low-level shoplifting to physical assault of shop workers, as deploying facial recognition for small-scale shoplifting was a quite different use case compared to investigating the assault of a shop worker and conflating the two crimes would be of serious ethical concern. The member also questioned whether governance and guidance would be developed to distinguish the use of biometric technologies in these crimes, particularly with the abolition of the OBSCC.

9.11 The Policy representative responded that they were unsure but would take question back and seek answers.

9.12 Action 5: 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.

9.13 A member of BFEG asked about potential new measures designed to target retail crime and theorised that these were designed to target serial and organised shoplifting groups but asked for confirmation of this. The BSCC also queried how serial shoplifting would be distinguished from low-level shoplifting.

10 BFEG update on work with ACE

10.1 The BFEG lead for working with ACE noted a meeting took place in September where ACE outlined their role to BFEG. Limited progress occurred between September and December, but interactions had picked up in recent months.

10.2 A form had been developed that ACE would fill in if they identified projects, they thought BFEG could support with. A test case had been submitted and reviewed. Due to time constraints, it had been mutually agreed for BFEG not to proceed however, points were identified that would improve BFEG engagement going forward.

10.3 The BFEG ACE lead noted the specific test project BFEG were asked about had limited use of biometrics or forensics, and highlighted a need to set the scope of work BFEG would take on. The BFEG ACE lead also queried whether this work would come under BFEG’s formal commissioned work or self-commissioned work.

10.4 It was noted that ACE had expressed that they had several projects lined up they wanted BFEG engagement with, thus there was a need to setup a triage system to ensure these would be managed properly and consider BFEG capacity.

10.5 A member of BFEG suggested a need to evaluate the relationship with ACE and agree a system whereby ACE would provide definitive proposals for BFEG to advise on. A meeting was suggested with ACE to ask them to provide definitive proposals on what they would like BFEG to consider. It was noted that interactions thus far had been ad-hoc with limited ongoing interaction.

10.6 A BFEG member suggested the idea of a workflow diagram agreed with ACE to better understand individual roles and expectations. The question of governance was also raised if ACE were to fund BFEG to investigate certain projects.

10.7 One BFEG member reflected that they thought ACE should be asked to explain the ethical issues they have already considered before coming to BFEG, rather than asking BFEG to consider and assess everything themselves. This would better utilise the time of BFEG to consider the largest ethical matters and provide mitigating solutions to any considerations raised. Another member suggested ACE may need to pass these questions on to project owners, and noted BFEG may need to develop a document outlining the group’s capabilities and what they can and can’t take on. The BFEG ACE lead volunteered to draft something to this effect and share with BFEG.

10.8 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.

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

10.10 A member of BFEG agreed that ACE would act as a conduit for referring commissioned projects to BFEG but noted that ACE additionally commission their own projects and should work to determine whether these commissions are ethically sensitive from the beginning to decide whether they should be passed on to BFEG, rather than this being an afterthought.

11 BFEG update on PEB

11.1 Since the BFEG December meeting, work had continued in engaging with different policing stakeholders, including the NPCC, the Association of Police Crime Commissioners (APCC) and the College of Policing (CoP).

11.2 It was noted that CoP were producing a report which detailed their experiences working with BFEG on a case-study to inform the development of PEB.

11.3 BFEGs PEB lead outlined that BFEG had considered this and passed initial feedback to Cop It was mentioned that the NPCC had contacted the BFEG Secretariat to state that they were waiting for this assessment from CoP before progressing further. Going forward the NPCC would be leading on the delivery, oversight, and governance of the PEB process.

11.4 BFEGs PEB lead indicated that BFEG had also engaged with the APCC and that this progress was now waiting on CoP to report back.

11.5 Action 8: BFEG PEB lead to provide an update on progress once CoP evaluation had been completed.

11.6 BFEGs PEB lead noted that the full PEB brief was not yet finalised, but that this would be progressed in the coming months following CoP’s report.

11.7 A member of BFEG outlined a complicating factor in which the NPCC operated in silos for example with ethics, biometrics, facial recognition, and Automatic Number Plate Recognition all being dealt with by different teams. They shared that they were nervous about the impending report as this only considered one possible use of PEB, although in reality the scope could be much broader. The member also queried the demand that could ensue if all police forces began using BFEG as a PEB and the impact this could have on capacity. Finally, the member indicated a need to distinguish between BFEG’s role in overseeing the ethics of data, biometrics, and forensics, rather than a general ethical body for policing.

11.8 Additionally, it was raised that there would be a need to be clear on terminology.

12 Update paper on FIGG

12.1 Officials from within Policing and FINDS presented to BFEG in June 2022 on the potential to use investigative genealogy for the investigation of crime. Officials from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) attended this meeting to share an update with BFEG as the landscape had changed since 2022.

12.2 BFEG were informed that a project would involve the review of methodologies followed by the more ethically challenging consideration of the technology that could be used to identify unidentified human remains. BFEG were informed that ethical challenges had already been identified and as previously agreed in 2022, BFEG would be provided a copy of the finalised Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) once completed.

12.3 Regarding the DPIA, a BFEG member asked what specifically the group were looking for and when they wanted this.

12.4 The official from MPS noted that US companies were only main players in this space. The official indicated the DPIA could be circulated in the short-term for comment but was likely to be a living document over the subsequent months, or alternatively the DPIA could be finalised and shared with BFEG for comment later.

12.5 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.

12.6 A BFEG member asked whether an ethical impact assessment would also be developed, the official responded that only the DPIA in development at that time. It was noted feedback had already been received from the London Policing Ethics Panel.

12.7 BFEG considered the proposal and shared initial reflections for ethical consideration, noted below:

• The ethical issues around engaging with United States (US)-based companies which the group were doing due to a lack of expertise in the UK.

• The difference between opting-in vs opting-out of a trial and how the research group were considering the possible biases these induced.

12.8 The ethics of searching DNA samples against DNA databases as this could make consent particularly challenging as an individual’s relatives could also be partially identified using their DNA.

• Consent issues that could arise if genealogists conduct family tree searches and identify individuals who have not consented, as well as any relationships within families that may be found to be different than was previously thought.

12.9 It would be difficult to constrain the technology to the intended use case and it could be deployed by groups for other purposes in violation of the ethics.

12.10 A member of BFEG suggested working with genealogists to produce an academic paper that could be peer-reviewed and spark a debate on what regulatory framework was needed to enable genealogy within law enforcement to be used ethically and give confidence to the courts system. The MPS official commented that this was a promising idea and shared that training courses would be developed to ensure genealogists were qualified to conduct this work. Engagement with the FBI and colleagues in Australia had taken place to create a community consensus.

12.11 A member of BFEG queried a mechanism for independent oversight of the system and whether there would be any independent authorisation before such investigations could occur. It was suggested that a comprehensive DPIA should nullify the need for an ethical impact assessment although, another member reflected that theoretically a well-completed DPIA would suffice but felt that these were seldom completed to the proper standard.

12.12 In response, the BFEG Chair noted that the two existing regulatory bodies for genealogy would not currently offer the level of oversight necessary and that more work was needed in this space. It was mentioned that this was complicated as some of those working in genealogy were hobbyists while others were providing professional services and the need to encompass both groups, alongside the need to set standards for evidential use in court.

13 BRT working group update on voice and gait work

13.1 The BRT working group had been commissioned to report on the state of biometric and forensic voice and gait recognition technologies.

13.2 Evidence gathering sessions were held in January to hear from stakeholders in government and industry about the state of voice and gait recognition technologies.

13.3 One-to-one engagement was also held with Dstl and HMRC, with HMRC being a big user of voice recognition technology in government.

13.4 The decision was taken that gait recognition systems were very immature and so there was not much to comment on at that time.

13.5 The working group chose to proceed with producing a report on voice recognition systems.

13.6 A draft report outlining the working group’s findings and conclusions had been developed and was under review.

13.7 The current version of the report had been circulated to BFEG as an agenda paper and BFEG members were invited for comment on this draft over the subsequent two weeks.

13.8 In particular, the working group invited members with a legal background to comment.

13.9 The draft recommendations could largely be applied to all biometric systems, but the working group felt it was worth reiterating specifically in relation to voice recognition technology.

13.10 The aim was for this report to act as a parallel to previous work BFEG had conducted on live facial recognition.

13.11 Action 10: BFEG members to review the draft report on voice recognition technology.

14 AOB

14.1 It was provisionally agreed that the subsequent BFEG meeting would be an in-person meeting held in York on July 23rd.

Annex A – List of attendees and apologies

Present (BFEG Members)

• Professor Mark Watson-Gandy (Chair)

• Mr David Lewis

• Professor Richard Guest
• Professor Niamh Nic Daeid
• Dr Nóra Ni Loideain
• Professor Sarah Morris
• Professor Emeritus Charles Raab
• Professor Thomas Sorell
• Professor Denise Syndercombe Court
• Professor Ann-Maree Farrell

Apologies (BFEG members)

• Dr Peter Waggett

Present (Home Office (HO) officials and Stakeholders)

• Forensic Information Database Service, HO
• BFEG Secretariat, HO
• Data and Identity Policy Representatives, HO
• Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (OBSCC) representatives
• Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC)

Apologies (Home Office (HO) officials and Stakeholders)

• Data and Identity Policy Sponsor
• Home Office Biometrics Programme representatives

Present (Other organisations)

• Forensic Investigative Genealogy Group (FIGG) Official, from the Metropolitan Police Service

Annex B – review of open actions from previous meeting

March 2020

Action 3: Complex Datasets working group to produce general guidance on ethical issues in binary classification systems.

October 2021

Action 7: Secretariat to develop a template to provide to presenters based on the BFEG ethical principles.

March 2023

Action 2: Policy representative to feedback concerns regarding digital forensics to the Forensic Science Regulator.

June 2023

Action 1: Members to provide policy with a list of their concerns regarding the lack of oversight and ethical governance for facial recognition, following the abolition of the Biometrics Surveillance Camera Commissioner.

Action 2: Members to collate questions for a meeting with director of intelligence at the Metropolitan Police Service.

Action 3: Link to FINDS annual report to be provided to BFEG members.

Action 5: Officers in the Office for the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner to provide an update on progress with regard to the abolition of the role, including potential for representatives from ICO and IPCO to attend a future BFEG meeting to address governance and ethics frameworks in place to address the abolition of the surveillance code of practice.

Action 6: Secretariat to coordinate agreement of a deputy chair for each BFEG working group.

September 2023

Action 3: Secretariat to liaise with ACE and facilitate a BFEG representative attendance at an open-source intelligence event hosted by ACE.

December 2023

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

Action 2: Secretariat to collate an overview of the BFEG panel expertise.

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.

Action 8: Secretariat to undertake a review of BFEG Working Groups including current membership and purpose(s).

Action 9: Secretariat to liaise with FINDS officers to develop the proposal for BFEG endorsement.

Action 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.

April 2024

Action 1: The BSCC to ask the appropriate Home Office team to share the risk and issues log with BFEG.

Action 2: Policy to update BFEG on how the investment into facial recognition and biometrics was being spent, what the spend would be on governance, and whether there was scope for input from BFEG.

Action 3: Home Office AI Adoption Policy to be provided to BFEG.

Action 4: Policy to provide a detailed breakdown of what the requests within the commissioning brief would include and when BFEG can expect these requests, to facilitate project and programme management of the yearly commission.

Action 5: 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.

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 8: BFEG PEB lead to provide an update on progress once CoP evaluation had been completed.

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.

Action 10: BFEG members to review the draft report on voice recognition technology.