Corporate report

BFEG meeting minutes: 9 June 2021

Updated 20 August 2024

Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group

Notes of the 16th meeting held on 9 June 2021, via videoconference.

1 Welcome and introductions

1.1 Mark Watson-Gandy, Chair, welcomed all to the 16th meeting of the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) – see annex A for attendees and apologies.

2 Notes of the last meeting, action log and matters arising

2.1 The minutes of the March meeting had been circulated subject to minor corrections the minutes were agreed.

Action 1: Secretariat to make corrections to March 2021 minutes and publish.

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

2.3 All other actions were complete.

3 Chair’s update and 2020/21 annual report

3.1 The Chair informed the members that the 2019/20 BFEG annual report was published on the group’s website on the 18th of March 2021.

3.2 The first draft of the 2020/21 annual report had been circulated to members for review. The members were asked to provide the secretariat with any corrections, changes or additions to the report by Friday the 11th of June.

Action 2: Members to send comments and corrections to 2020/21 annual report to secretariat by Friday 11th June.

3.3 The group were informed that the recruitment of new members was in progress and candidates had been invited to interview.

3.4 The Chair noted that there were three long standing and valued members of the BFEG who would conclude their final terms in July 2021, Jennifer Temkin, Adil Akram, and Isabel Nisbet. Subject to the necessary checks all three would be co-opted to their working groups until the completion of their current pieces of work. The Chair expressed his thanks to these members for their dedication, contribution, and work for the BFEG.

3.5 The Chair updated the group on a query raised by the BFEG at the December 2019 meeting about the algorithms used for the online passport application process and levels of accuracy. It was explained that in the online passport application process users could upload a digital photo as part of their application. This uploaded photograph was checked for compliance to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards using a third-party tool provided by Idemia, called FaceTools. The tool was not a facial recognition tool.

3.6 The Home Office was undertaking an assessment of the photo checker tool and the BFEG would be asked to provide comment on the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). A member commented it could be beneficial for the BFEG to also provide advice on the technical implementation.

3.7 A member suggested important issues such as these and new court case judgments, such as Bridges v South Wales Police should be discussed by the BFEG. It was suggested a log is created of legal judgements that were relevant to the remit of the BFEG, and to keep track of responses and updates. Another member agreed with this idea and suggested these cases could be discussed at an awayday.

Action 3: Secretariat to create a log of legal judgements that were relevant to the BFEG.

4 Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s update

4.1 The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC) provided the BFEG with an overview of his first three months in post. The main points were:

• The BSCC had held meetings with Home Office Officials in Policing, Ministers, Law Enforcement, the new Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, and the new Forensic Science Regulator.
• The annual police force programme visits to review their compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act arrangements, discuss emerging biometric technologies, and surveillance camera systems had commenced. During these visits, the BSCC asked about the police force arrangements in the deletion of custody records of un-convicted individuals.
• Annual reports for the Biometrics Commissioner and Surveillance Camera Commissioners were being prepared.
• The BSCC’s first newsletter had been published.
• The BSCC was working with the Home Office to update the Surveillance Camera Code, and a draft should be ready for consultation in the coming months.

5 FIND Strategy Board update

5.1 The group received an update from the Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board (FIND SB). The main points were:

• The last FIND SB was held on 15th April 2021. The next Board meeting was scheduled to be held on 1st July 2021.
• The FIND SB were informed that the Prüm Delivery Board had agreed to increase DNA connections over the summer, and there was the potential to connect with an additional 5-10 EU Member States.
• The Police National Computer (PNC) change required to share suspect’s DNA in England and Wales with the EU was in progress. The design has been finalised and it was anticipated that this will be implemented in the next couple of months.
• More monitoring of Criminal Justice outcomes had been put in place for Prüm DNA matches reported back to police forces.
• As part of the Home Office Biometrics (HOB) Programme the Contamination Elimination Database (CED) was being upgraded to an improved platform to sit alongside the National DNA Database (NDNAD).
• The comprehensive review of the FINDS International DNA and Fingerprint Data Exchange Policy was underway. The initial draft was expected to be circulated to key stakeholders in August 2021 and subsequently shared with the BFEG for comment.

5.2 A member queried if the approval being sought from the FIND Strategy Board was for the export of UK DNA samples or DNA profiles via Interpol. The FIND representative sought clarification on this and the export would be of DNA profiles.

5.3 The FINDS representative was asked whether an evaluation of the exchange of DNA and fingerprints with additional EU member states via Prüm had been conducted. The representative confirmed a re-evaluation was planned for summer 2021.

5.4 It was suggested that as part of the re-evaluation it may be useful to have a discussion with members of the BFEG to identify the ethical issues about sharing DNA and fingerprints internationally.

5.5 The FINDS representative was asked if there were any risks to the Prüm arrangements as a result of the EU Exit. The representative responded that they were not expecting to make any changes to the process, and any risks identified would be assessed by the Prüm delivery board.

5.6 It was suggested that sharing examples of positive Criminal Justice outcomes as a result of the Prüm DNA matches would be helpful. This was noted by the FINDS representative.

6 Home Office policy update and new commission

6.1 The main points of the update from the policy sponsor were:

• The College of Policing draft guidance on Live Facial Recognition (LFR) was published on the 17th of May for a 6-week period of consultation. The guidance covered the construction of watchlists, deployment criteria and compliance with the public sector equality duty in relation to algorithm bias.
• South Wales Police’s work with Cardiff University on accuracy variance testing for LFR was proposed to start in around two-months’ time with results expected in September 2021.
• The Home Office had consulted with the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner on potential changes to the Surveillance Camera Code and Ministers were considering whether to instigate the statutory consultation.
• The Policy team had been working on the mobile data extraction section of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill which would have an associated code of practice. It was intended that the legislation be clear, robust, and proportionate, and that there were appropriate safeguards when extracting data from a device as part of an investigation.
• The Home Office policy team were also leading work alongside the Crown Prosecution Service and Ministry of Justice to rapidly evaluate further options to reduce the time victims spent without their phone as part of the Government’s rape review.

6.2 The Policy lead shared the BFEG commission for 2021/2022, this was a continuation of the previous commission with the addition of providing ethical advice on the policy relating to the digitisation of services in the border, immigration and citizenship system.

6.3 The policy lead was asked whether the BFEG would be engaged over the code of practice for the mobile data extraction that would support the PCSC Bill. The policy sponsor explained the code of practice would be subject to public consultation. It was proposed the Biometrics and Digital Forensics Working Group would review the draft code once complete.

6.4 The policy sponsor was also asked about a recent Information Commissioner Office (ICO) audit of the Home Office data protection compliance and whether there any findings that may be of interest to the BFEG. This was taken as an action.

Action 4: BFEG to receive information on any relevant outcomes from the ICO audit in terms of implications for HO Biometrics Programme.

6.5 In response to the new commission it was suggested that including specific questions for the BFEG to consider, would be helpful to ensure the advice provided was useful and timely. It was also noted that Live Facial Recognition was not included in the new commission. The policy sponsor explained the Home Office Biometrics Programme, which was one of the work streams in the commission, would include consideration of a national infrastructure for the use of facial recognition by police forces. The Home Office Biometrics Ethics Working Group’s advice would be sought on this.

6.6 The policy sponsor was asked for any specific areas of interest that could be looked at by the Facial Recognition Working Group (FRWG) and voice recognition was highlighted. Gait recognition, and emotion detection were also suggested by a member of the BFEG. It was agreed that it would be beneficial for members of the FRWG to meet with the Policy sponsor and a representative from the Home Office Biometrics Programme to discuss future areas of interest in this area.

Action 5: Secretariat to arrange a discussion on futures in biometric recognition technology

6.7 The policy sponsor was asked about the Home Office’s position with regard to seizing mobile phones in relation to the PCSC Bill, noting that at the previous BFEG meeting the BFEG had recommended that complainants should not be without their phone as this was likely to be their main (or only) means of contact and support. The policy sponsor noted the Rape review was due to be published soon and the intention was for victims to have their phones returned to them very quickly. The policy sponsor also added new technologies were being explored that could enable all data from a device is be extracted in an encrypted format, and only accessed if needed.

6.8 The Chair of the Biometrics and Digital Forensics Working Group wished to congratulate the Home Office on obtaining statutory powers for the Forensic Science Regulator under the Forensic Science Regulators Act 2021.

7 Scottish Biometrics Commissioner

7.1 The Chair welcomed and Dr Brian Plastow the new Scottish Biometrics Commissioner who provided the BFEG with an overview of his new role. The main points were:

• The Independent Advisory Group on the use of Biometric Data in Scotland Report was published in 2018. The report had recommended the creation of a Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, to provide independent oversight of biometrics and forensics databases.
• The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner was formally appointed on the 12th April 2021 and would report to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner powers would extend to Police Scotland, The Scottish Police Authority, and Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC).
• In the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Bill biometric data was defined as, DNA, fingerprints, facial images, and biological sources samples that data can be derived from for example, blood samples, and hair samples.
• Police in Scotland were only able to take biometrics without consent after arrest, and there was no mobile biometric technology available to use in Scotland.

7.2 The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner informed the BFEG that a Code of Practice was being drafted and planned for publication in spring 2022. The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner would also like to consult the BFEG on the draft code of practice once available.

7.3 An advisory group was to be established to provide advice on the functions within his remit. The advisory group would include, academics, The Biometric and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, and other key stakeholders.

7.4 There were three areas of concern in biometrics expressed by the Scottish parliament:

• Live and retrospective facial recognition. The police in Scotland used retrospective facial recognition when using the Police National Database (PND). Live facial recognition had not been used by Police Scotland.
• Digital forensics and the ability of digital forensic techniques to capture biometric data.
• Police Scotland retaining and sharing images of innocent people with different police forces via PND.

7.5 The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner was looking forward to working with the BFEG.

8 Complex Datasets Working Group update

8.1 The Chair of the Complex Datasets working group informed the BFEG that the group had been approached by a team from the Child Abuse Image Database (CAID) transformation programme for ethical advice.

8.2 The Child Abuse Image Database (CAID) provides UK law enforcement with an image database and associated tools to aid investigations into indecent images of children. Over the coming years, the CAID Transformation Programme aimed to expand CAID in line with policing priorities and provide new capabilities utilising Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced automation to examine and categorise large volumes of images and videos.

8.3 The CAID team was tendering for bids for a second image classification solution which would be used to identify images that were new to the database and were likely to be illegal and then to grade the new images according to their severity.

8.4 The CDWG had held initial meetings with the CAID team and considered the bid tender document for the second image classification solution.

8.5 The CAID team would be delivering a presentation to the working group to provide more detailed background information on the database, how it is used, and projects that may benefit from advice from the working group.

9 Home Office Biometrics Programme Ethics Group update

9.1 Members heard an update from the Chair of the HOB EWG. The Working Group had met once since the last BFEG meeting. The main points were:

• The HOB programme was continuing to progress well, however there were delays with the implementation of the Strategic Matcher due to technical issues which were being addressed.
• The HOB programme would be transitioning to a product way of working approach in the future, with the biometric services managed by customer facing product managers, supported by portfolio delivery and platform delivery teams. The HOB EWG highlighted the need to maintain the strong degree of diligence on ethical and data protection issues in the in the product model.
• The HOB EWG had provided the HOB programme team with initial ethical considerations on the proposed changes to the biometric regulations.
• The HOB EWG had also discussed the use of mobile biometric enrolments for Asylum Seekers who had entered the UK via small boats.

9.2 The BFEG was asked to agree a new Chair for the HOB EWG following the conclusion of the term of the existing Chair. This was agreed and the BFEG Chair thanked the outgoing Chair for their time supporting this group and for continuing that support as a co-opted member.

9.3 The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSSC) sought the advice of the HOB E WG on how issues of bias should be considered when statistics were generated from biometrics technology used by specific groups. The WG Chair replied that sometimes the potential injustice and fairness was in the context in which the products were used, rather than the technologies themselves, and understanding the context of use was important in considering the ethical issues.

9.4 A member of the BFEG also noted that Home Office data scientists had been considering issues of bias and fairness and could be a useful resource for advice.

9.5 It was noted that a discussion forum on defining bias and its meaning could be beneficial and this could be held within the HOB EWG or facilitated by the Alan Turing Institute.

Action 6: Secretariat to follow up with on a forum for discussion of bias to address needs of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Office.

10 Biometrics and Digital Forensics Working Group update

10.1 The chair of the Biometrics and Digital Forensics working group (BDF WG) provided an update to the BFEG. The main updates were:

• The Working Group Chair thanked the members for their valuable contributions to the working group’s draft recommendations at the last meeting.
• The Working Group had submitted a final set of recommendations to the Home Office Policy Team.
• The Home Office Policy Team had offered to provide a summary of existing digital forensic tools used by police forces, and the challenges of implementing specific digital forensic tools.

10.2 A member commented there was known difficulty in extracting content from devices and inadequate extraction of content from phones had led to difficulties in court cases. The BDF WG Chair agreed and noted there were challenges in deciding what content was relevant, and how much should be extracted and examined. There were existing legal provisions that should minimise examination of large volumes of data that may not be relevant to the case.

10.3 It was agreed the that working groups’ recommendations would be shared with all of the BFEG members and the Policy team would welcome any additional comments to the final recommendations. The policy representative noted that the recommendations in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Code of Practice were in alignment with the BDF WG’s recommendations.

Action 7: Secretariat to share BDF WG report with wider BFEG for comment.

11 AOB

11.1 Members were advised that the College of Policing draft guidance on Live Facial Recognition was out for consultation, and the members agreed that the BFEG should draft a response to the consultation.

Action 8: Secretariat to collect comments and draft a response from the BFEG to the public consultation on the College of Policing draft LFR guidance

11.2 The next BFEG meeting would be a hybrid meeting, held on 20th of October 2021.

Annex A – List of attendees and apologies

Present – all via videoconference

• Mark Watson-Gandy - Chair
• Adil Akram - BFEG Member
• Simon Caney - BFEG Member
• Mark Jobling - BFEG Member
• Isabel Nisbet - BFEG Member
• Jennifer Temkin - BFEG Member
• Thomas Sorell - BFEG Member
• Denise Syndercombe Court - BFEG Member
• Richard Guest – BFEG Member
• Charles Raab – BFEG Member
• Julian Huppert – BFEG Member
• Peter Waggett - BFEG Member
• Andrew Thomson – FINDS Unit, HO
• Juliette Verdejo - FINDS Unit, HO
• Fraser Sampson – Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner
• Dr Brian Plastow, Scottish Biometrics Commissioner
• Alex MacDonald – Data and Identity Unit, HO
• Geoff Keogh - Data and Identity Unit, HO
• Caitlin Seymour, Data and Identity Unit, HO
• Emma Hyland, Data and Identity Unit, HO - observer
• Steven Stone, Data and Identity Unit, HO - observer
• Nadine Roache - BFEG Secretariat, HO
• Jennifer Guest - BFEG Secretary, HO

Apologies

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

Annex B – review of open actions from previous meeting

March 2021

Action 1: (FINDS to share draft UK-EU data sharing agreement to allow BFEG to consider ethical issues in international data exchange of biometrics). A draft would be shared at the next meeting. Action ongoing.

December 2020

Action 2: (BFEG member to raise with relevant groups the lack of oversight of familial DNA search algorithms used by Forensic Service Providers). A report would be prepared for the Chair. Action ongoing.

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.

Sept 2020

Action 2: (Update on the revised police guidance and Public Sector Equality Duty proposal with Cardiff University) – the work had been delayed by Covid-19 restrictions. Action ongoing.

March 2020

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