Corporate report

BFEG meeting minutes: 22 March 2023

Updated 20 August 2024

Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group

Notes of the 22nd meeting held on 22 March 2023 via videoconference.

1. Welcome and introductions

Mark Watson-Gandy, Chair, welcomed all to the 22nd meeting of the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) – see annex A for attendees and apologies. The Chair thanked Dr Julian Huppert for his contributions to the BFEG as this would be his final meeting as a BFEG member before his term ends. Dr Huppert would be co-opted onto the BFEG until the 2022/23 commission on artificial intelligence (AI) was complete.

2. Notes of the last meeting, matters arising and Chairs update

The minutes of the December meeting, the last meeting of the BFEG, had been circulated prior to the meeting. Two corrections were noted, following amendment and final review, the minutes were to be published.

Action 1: Secretariat to finalise and publish the December 2022 BFEG meeting minutes.

The Chair reminded members of the launch event for the BFEG principles taking place in late March and confirmed with members that Lord Sharpe, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Home Office, would be in attendance. The Chair reminded members to submit any changes in their declarations of interest to the secretariat. Members were reminded they are responsible for ensuring that any declarations are made as matters arise. The outstanding actions were reviewed, updates were provided for ongoing actions as follows (a list of open actions from previous meetings can be found in annex B). All other actions were complete.

• March 2020 Action 3: Complex Datasets working group to produce general guidance on ethical issues in binary classification systems.

This action would be progressed during this meeting as part of agenda item 7.

• October 2021 Action 7: Secretariat to develop a template to provide to presenters based on the BFEG ethical principles.

The ethical principles had been updated and were due for publication. Progress could be made following publication.

3. Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC) update

The group had received a written update from the BSCC ahead of the meeting. The main points were:

• The BSCC had been conducting a series of engagement events and meeting with stakeholders.
• The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill had been laid in Parliament, the second reading of the Bill was expected to take place in the upcoming weeks. The Bill proposes to move the casework biometric functions to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. There was no proposed provision for the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s function to be absorbed and the role would be scrapped with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.
• The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner had published their annual report for 2021 to 2022 which had been laid in Parliament in February. The report had received media coverage, with focus of the reporting being on sample bag failures and concerns around the significant ethical considerations involved in the procurement and deployment of public space surveillance camera systems about which the Commissioner noted they had previously sought the view of BFEG.
• The BSCC had been reappointed by the Home Secretary from 28 February until the Bill had made its way through Parliament.
• Findings from the Commissioner’s survey of England and Wales forces plus other law enforcement bodies on their use of overt surveillance technology were published in February. The BSCC noted that responses had yet to be received to the report but there had been interest in the approach to retention.
• The BSCC had given evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in February on all aspects of both parts of his role.

A member of the BFEG sought views from the BSCC on the bulk collection of data, specifically in relation to collection of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) data. The BSCC noted that there can be benefit to the bulk collection of data for ANPR for policing but highlighted that there should be an expectation for proper, accountable governance. The BSCC noted that the benefits of or necessity for the bulk collection and retention of data could be different in different domains.

A member of the BFEG queried whether there was a need to address a possible lack of engagement and understanding from the Police with regard to the use of surveillance technology. The BSCC agreed commenting that they were working to elevate the importance of understanding to the national police chiefs’ council (NPCC) and relevant stakeholders. The BFEG offered to share their network to facilitate these conversations.

A member of the BFEG asked the BSCC whether they though there is enough advice available regarding how to delete data and the minimum requirements for data deletion. The BSCC acknowledged that the available advice is insufficient and there was an urgent need for advice on how to effectively delete data and conduct a sufficient risk assessment.

4. Policy update

The group had received a written update from Data and Identity Policy ahead of the meeting. The main points were:

• The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill had been laid in Parliament. The Bill proposes to abolish the two statutory roles combined in the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner; the Biometrics Commissioner’s casework functions would be transferred to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. It was expected that the relevant committees to take place in late May with debates expected in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
• The National Physical Laboratory was conducting testing on the police use of facial recognition, focused on accuracy and bias.
• A policy was being drafted for the departmental use of powerful data driven technologies, incorporating considerations around risk, ethics and governance. The BFEG AI working group looking specifically at the risks associated with these technologies.
• The Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) Code of Practice had been approved by Parliament on 1 March following a short debate in both houses. The Code will come into effect from October 2023 alongside commencement of the final provisions of the Act.
• The recent His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire (HMICFRS) thematic inspection of Digital Forensics highlighted a range of challenges in delivery of digital forensics and made recommendations for improvement.

A member of the BFEG raised concerns around the commencement of the FSR code of Practice within the digital forensics’ community. Specifically noting that concerns are being raised by smaller firms. The Policy representative noted the concerns and responded that the FSR does have a specialist advisory group for digital forensics and there is representation from the digital community at the forensics reform board.

Action 2: Policy representative to feedback concerns regarding digital forensics to the FSR.

5. Forensic Information Database Service (FINDS) Strategy Board (SB) update

The representative from the FINDS SB provided the following update to members regarding the December FINDS SB meeting.

• FINDS continues to work within their statement of requirements.
• At the last meeting of the BFEG, the BFEG were advised of a recent strategy planning workshop. The outputs of the workshop were presented to the FINDS SB at the December meeting. There would be further discussion to action plan for the strategic items.
• The FINDS SB annual report would be submitted soon to the Home Secretary for publication.

Ahead of the meeting FINDS SB shared two issue papers which the FINDS SB representatives were seeking comment on from the BFEG.

Paper one related to the Vulnerable Persons’ DNA Database sample consent form, which the BFEG were initially informed of in June 2020. The consent form had been updated to allow for DNA profiles to be searched against unidentified bodies/parts DNA profiles, where the database had previously been static. FIND SB were seeking views on the consent form before finalisation.

A member of the BFEG recommended that the literacy level of the form should be suitable, so it easily understood by the individuals it is intended for. The BFEG member indicated the language on the form may be too sophisticated and bureaucratic, offering to provide contact details for research ethics leads who could provide further insight. It was agreed further comments and iterations of the form would be shared over email.

Paper two provided details of regarding the ongoing project to develop a United Kingdom (UK) Y-STR reference database data set for the UK population. BFEG members had previously been invited to review the consent and survey forms and the participant information sheet. Additionally, ahead of the meeting members shared comments over email. There were no further comments.

6. Workplan update and working group review

The Chair provided the group with an update on each of the working groups of the BFEG. A member of the BFEG questioned what, if any, updates there were with regard to the STAR board as bids are currently under review. The secretariat agreed to follow up with the Metropolitan police chief scientific advisor’s office.

Action 3: Secretariat to enquire with the Metropolitan police chief scientific advisor’s office whether the BFEG would be consulted again regarding further bids.

The BFEG had previously agreed that that groups name would be subject to change to better reflect the remit of the group. The secretariat provided a progress update.

The group were informed of the publication of the 2021 - 2022 Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group annual report and that an accompanying statement was laid in both Houses.

7. AI commission/ working group update

The chair of the AI working group of the BFEG provided the group a progress update for the AI commission. The working group had developed an AI ethics charter, a draft copy of this had been shared with the members of the BFEG ahead of the meeting.

A member of the BFEG suggested that at present the charter was not clear enough for individuals who were not familiar with AI or AI ethics. The charter should include more ethical principles more specific to AI. There was agreement from members of the BFEG the ethics were not clear enough and reference to general ethical principles should also be included.

A member of the BFEG highlighted that advice on monitoring and assessment of system performance should be included.

A member of the BFEG commented that the charter should include a commitment to training and having expertly trained in house resources.

8. Notes on recommendations for projects involving large datasets

The BFEG had an outstanding meeting action from March 2020 for the Complex Datasets working group to produce general guidance on ethical issues in binary classification systems. The action had not been progressed as members have agreed general advice is often not suitably applicable to specific projects. It had been proposed that the advice of the complex datasets working group could be combined with advice provided by the data ethics advisory group. Ahead of the meeting a summary of the recommendations shared by the two working groups was shared with BFEG members.

The group discussed that there were still limitations in the advice as context and a dialogue are necessary to provide ethical advice which is specific and applicable.

9. BFEG forum meeting

The next meeting of the BFEG was due to take place as a forum format. Members were provided the opportunity to share suggestions of individuals/organisations to approach.

10. AOB

The Chair asked members whether there was interest in procuring an online information sharing platform, members agreed that this had been underutilised in the past and would not be necessary.

Annex A – List of attendees and apologies

Present

• Mark Watson-Gandy – Chair
• Simon Caney – BFEG Member
• David Lewis – BFEG Member
• Ann-Maree Farrell – BFEG Member
• Richard Guest – BFEG Member
• Julian Huppert – BFEG Member
• Nina Hallowell – BFEG Member
• Mark Jobling – BFEG Member
• Niamh Nic Daeid – BFEG Member
• Sarah Morris – BFEG Member
• Charles Raab – BFEG Member
• Thomas Sorell – BFEG Member
• Denise Syndercombe Court – BFEG Member
• Peter Waggett – BFEG Member
• Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner
• FINDS Unit, HO
• Data and Identity Unit, HO
• Data and Identity Unit, HO
• BFEG Secretariat, HO

Apologies

• Liz Campbell – BFEG Member
• Louise Amoore – BFEG Member
• Nóra Ni Loideain – BFEG Member

Annex B – review of open actions from previous meeting

October 2021

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

March 2020

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