Corporate report

BFEG meeting minutes: 14 December 2021

Updated 20 August 2024

Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group

Notes of the 18th meeting held on 14 December 2021, via videoconference.

1. Welcome and introductions

1.1 Mark Watson-Gandy, Chair, welcomed all to the 18th meeting of the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) – see annex A for attendees and apologies.

1.2. The Chair introduced a new committee member, Ann-Maree Farrell. The official appointment of a further member was pending completion of their security clearance.

2. Notes of the last meeting, action log, matters arising and Chair’s update

2.1 The minutes of the October meeting had been circulated and some minor corrections were noted. The minutes would be corrected, finalised and published by the secretariat.

Action 1: Secretariat to publish the minutes of the previous meeting

2.2. A review of open actions from previous meetings can be found in annex B.

2.3 Action 3, October 2021: A glossary to be created to accompany DNA consent forms to explain technical terms. The Forensic Information Databases Strategy (FINDS) Board were checking the feasibility of including a glossary or whether there is other explanatory information provided during the sampling process. If a glossary needed to be created FINDS would ask for a working group from the BFEG to assist.

2.4 Action 4, October 2021: With regard to this action the FINDS representative was asked to clarify whether DNA material taken for the Vulnerable Persons’ DNA Database (VPDD) was retained and if so, for what reason and for how long. It was explained that there was no requirement to destroy samples taken with consent with in the six months set for samples taken under Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) legislation. The reasons for retaining the DNA material were explained as:

• vulnerable persons may end up being missing persons, and if a body was later found there may be a need to analyse the DNA sample using alternative profiling techniques, for example Y-STR

• DNA profiles may not be generated from samples immediately depending on case circumstances

2.5 Action 7, October 2021: follow up on contactless borders workshop, would be covered in item 6.

2.6 Action 8, October 2021: submit a BFEG response to the consultation on the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner’s draft Code of Practice, would be covered in item 8.

2.7 Action 3, June 2021: secretariat to create a log of legal judgements that were relevant to the BFEG, would be covered under agenda item 10.

2.8 All other actions were complete.

2.9 Under matters arising the Chair informed the BFEG members that travel expenses must be booked by the Secretariat and could no longer be booked by members and reclaimed.

3. Policy update

3.1 The BFEG received an update from Data and Identity Policy ahead of the meeting and the main points were Data Reform, the Surveillance Camera Code and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Data Reform

3.2 The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) had been consulting on data reforms. This included biometrics proposals to:

• simplify oversight arrangements
• make it easier to amend rules on collection, retention and use
• develop a Code of Practice on police use of emerging technology

3.3 The consultation ended on 19 November and Policy were working through the comments received and would advise ministers and discuss next steps with DCMS. The BFEG would be kept updated on the progress.

Surveillance Camera Code

3.4 The revised Code was presented to Parliament on 16 November and if accepted would come into effect on 12 January 2022.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

3.5 The Police, Crime, Sentencing Bill was being debated and scrutinised.

3.6 Amendments had been introduced to provide additional safeguards for individuals asked to agree to the extraction of information from their digital devices.

3.7 The powers would be supported by a statutory code of practice. BFEG had provided feedback on the first draft and BFEG views had been incorporated where possible. A formal, public consultation would be carried out following Royal Assent and BFEG members would be asked for feedback as part of that process.

4. FIND Strategy Board (FIND SB) update

4.1 There had been no FIND SB meeting since the last BFEG meeting, therefore a short verbal update was given on ongoing activities within FINDS. This included:

• completion of updates to the FINDS fingerprint access and use policy and international exchange policy

• completion of an early draft of the FINDS annual report

4.2 The BFEG were also asked to consider a request received by the Chair of the FIND SB for permission to submit a small number of DNA extracts to the USA for DNA processing.

4.3 The DNA would be extracted from samples purchased from a biobank and the processing was required as part of a research project.

4.4 The BFEG members were informed that:

• the processing method was not available in the UK
• the material to be sent was extracted DNA, not original sample material
• the extracts would be fully anonymised
• no profile data or DNA extract would be retained by the overseas service provider

4.5 The BFEG sought clarity around the anonymisation and it was explained that there would be no identifying information associated with the extract and that identifying information was not required for the processing.

4.6 The BFEG asked whether the overseas provider was accredited and the members were informed that accreditation to ISO 17025 was uncommon in the USA, however the provider was working towards achieving this.

4.7 The BFEG noted that extracts should be fully anonymised and that no personal data should be sent to the USA.

5. Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s update

5.1 The representative from the Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC) provided the BFEG with a verbal update. The main points were:

• the annual reports from the BSCC were published in November 2021

• the BSCC had provided comment on the DCMS consultation on reforms to the UK’s data protection regime and continued to discuss these reforms with the Home Office (HO)

• the Foreign Affairs Committee had published a report recommending the operation of equipment operated by Hikvision be banned in the UK. The BSCC had written to representatives from Hikvision to raise his concerns and had requested any meetings between them be made a public record. There had been no meetings to date

5.2 A BFEG member drew attention to the United Nations guiding principles on human rights and business which would bare directly on Hikvision and noted the due diligence requirements that address a lack of respect for human rights. The representative from the Office of the BSCC noted that mechanisms for issuing guidance around ethical procurements to policing, local authorities, and other organisations were being investigated.

5.3 The BSCC representative was asked about the updated Surveillance Camera Code, specifically why the BFEG’s recommendation to strengthen the wording from “should do” to “must do” was not accepted. The recommendations were reviewed by Data and Identity Policy and the policy sponsor explained that strengthening the wording would have put additional burden on the police. The rational was understood, however it was noted that strengthening the wording would have required organisations to justify where the Code was not followed.

5.4 A BFEG member asked if the consultation responses to the updated Surveillance Camera Code of Practice had been published. The BSCC representative confirmed a summary of the consultation responses had been published on the website but not the actual responses.

6. Future biometrics

6.1 Members of the Identity Security Policy Team, who lead on future biometrics, joined the meeting and provided an introduction to this item.

6.2 Biometric self-enrolment had been discussed at the previous BFEG meeting in October 2021: future biometrics policy would require facial images and fingerprints to be captured from all foreign nationals subject to immigration controls coming to the UK.

6.3 Such a requirement would only be implemented once self-enrolment technology was advanced enough to capture both face and fingerprint biometrics remotely.

6.4 In support of this a series of trials had been run over a week at the beginning of December looking at biometric self-enrolment technology under development.

6.5 The aim of the trial was to assess whether this technology could be implemented in the immigration space once it was sufficiently mature. A deliverable product was not expected for at least 3 to 4 years.

6.6 Almost 550 members of the public across a range of demographics; age, sex, and ethnicity, were recruited for the trial, representative of potential future users of the technology.

6.7 15 suppliers provided various technologies under development for testing, including 13 different smartphone apps and 5 different self-service kiosk solutions.

6.8 The trial was an early look at the technology to assess its maturity. The team would then design the next stages of testing and development.

6.9 3 members of the BFEG attended the trials on the final day to view the technology and consider its potential and limitations. The Future Biometrics team invited comments from the BFEG members who had attended, including any actions and considerations.

6.10 Members who had attended the trial had been impressed by the volume of data collected and the opportunities for data analysis. It was noted that the data collected was a huge asset and should allow for questions of ethics and bias to be addressed.

6.11 Attending the trial had been a useful learning experience for the BFEG members and it had been useful to observe the participants interacting with the technology, including face enrolment and contactless fingerprint capture.

6.12 Noting that this would be the first of many stages of testing, the BFEG members requested involvement in the design and planning of further activities to make suggestions on ethical considerations, although they had not noted any issues with the set-up of the trial they attended.

6.13 A summary of the member’s observations and discussion points raised in this meeting would be provided to the Future Biometrics Team who were preparing a report on the trials for publication. Consideration of the matters raised by the BFEG would be covered in this report.

6.14 The BFEG would like to continue to be involved in advising on this project. This was welcomed.

7. Biometrics and Digital Forensics Working Group (BDWG) discussion paper

7.1 The BDWG had been commissioned to provide advice on the ethical considerations relating to the retention of facial images taken in custody.

7.2 The Chair of the Working Group presented the BFEG with their initial considerations and the BFEG members provided comments and suggestions:

7.3 The commission asked about the retention of facial images, however there should also be consideration of the ethical use of the retained images. Retention limits should be defined and be appropriate for the associated offence.

7.4 The Bridges judgement should be included highlighting the two possible uses of facial images, live and retrospective face recognition, and the lack of detailed legislative framework.

7.5 The BFEG report on the ethical issues on the police use of live facial recognition technology should be referenced.

7.6 The FINDS representative asked if the working group had considered alignment with the retention and storage requirements for DNA and fingerprints in Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). The Chair of the Working Group had considered POFA and agreed it would be useful to include in the report.

7.7 The report from the BDWG would be finalised and shared with the policy lead.

Action 2: BDWG to finalise report and share with Biometrics Policy lead.

8. Scottish Biometrics Commissioner draft Code of Practice

8.1 The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner (SBC) had completed a draft of his proposed Code of Practice relating to the acquisition, use, retention, and destruction of biometric data for criminal justice and police purposes in Scotland.

8.2 The draft Code had been circulated to members for comment and a summary of the comments received had been shared with members ahead of the meeting.

8.3 Prior to finalising the response on the draft Code members were asked to provide any further comments and to agree the final submission.

8.4 No further comments were received and the submission was agreed.

Action 3: Chair to submit the BFEG response to the consultation on the SBC’s draft Code of Practice.

9. Workplan update

9.1 An updated workplan was shared with the members ahead of the meeting. No comments or amendments were made on the workplan.

10. AOB

10.1 The next BFEG meeting would be a virtual meeting, held on 24 March 2022.

10.2 Dates for the rest of the year were agreed; an away day and meeting on 8 June 2022, full group meetings on 21 September and 7 December 2022

Annex A - list of attendees and apologies

Present – all via videoconference

• Mark Watson-Gandy - Chair
• Simon Caney - BFEG member
• Anne-Maree Farrell – BFEG member
• Richard Guest – BFEG member
• Nina Hallowell – BFEG member
• David Lewis – BFEG member
• Mark Jobling - BFEG member
• Nóra Ni Loideain – BFEG member
• Sarah Morris – BFEG member
• Thomas Sorell - BFEG member
• Denise Syndercombe Court - BFEG member
• Charles Raab – BFEG member
• Peter Waggett - BFEG member
• Juliette Verdejo - FINDS Unit, HO
• Katie Scotton – BSCC’s Office
• Alex MacDonald – Data and Identity Unit, HO
• Laura Collison - Data and Identity Unit, HO - observer
• Nadine Roache - BFEG secretariat, HO
• Jennifer Guest - BFEG secretary, HO

Apologies

• Liz Campbell - BFEG member
• Julian Huppert – BFEG member
• Louise Amoore - BFEG member

Annex B - review of open actions from previous meeting

October 2021

Action 2: FINDS to share the data protection impact assessment (DPIA) for the international exchange policy with the BFEG if possible. The FINDS representative to check with the relevant agencies involved as to whether the DPIAs could be shared. Ongoing.

Action 6: Continue to work with Digital Data and Technology (DDaT) to define the ethical principles and processes for using the national police data laboratory (NPDL) capability. Secretariat to arrange a meeting between the NPDL and DEAG. Ongoing.

Action 10: Secretariat to develop a template to provide to presenters based on the BFEG ethical principles. Ongoing.

June 2021

Action 5: Secretariat to arrange a discussion on futures in biometric recognition technology (e.g. voice), liaise with Alex and Ian Betts. Action ongoing.

December 2020

Action 3: FINDS to provide an update on efficacy and false positive matches following the introduction of the new familial DNA policy. FINDS had carried out some review work on the requirements that forensic service providers (FSPs) need to meet to conduct National DNA Database (NDNAD) familial searches and would begin to consider how to assess the impact of the new policy. Action ongoing.

March 2020

Action 3: Complex Datasets Working Group to produce general guidance on ethical issues in binary classification systems. The secretariat was working with relevant stakeholders to identify useful areas for general guidance. Action ongoing.