British facial authentication system “81% of suspects are innocent”

The live facial recognition system LFR (live facial recognition), which finds suspects by comparing faces reflected in surveillance camera images and database facial images operated by the London Police Department, has been criticized for inaccurate precision and opaque operation. However, as a result of conducting an LFR-related investigation at the request of the London Police Department, 81% of those recognized as suspects were found to be innocent.

LFR is also called an automatic facial authentication system. It was first introduced in August 2016, but in the 2017 UEFA Champions League final, questions have been raised about accuracy, including misjudgement of more than 2,000 soccer fans as criminal suspects.

Accordingly, the London Police Department, which operated the system, commissioned a research team at the University of Essex to investigate, and a report came out. The report points out that there is no explicit authority to use the LFR in domestic law, so if the court raises an objection, it is highly likely that the deployment of the LFR by the police authorities is illegal. In addition, as a specific problem, the number of suspects extracted by LFR from the subject matter of the investigation was 42, but there were actually 8 cases. 34 pointed out that they were innocent. This suggests that the accuracy of suspect recognition by LFR is only 19%. Meanwhile, the measurement standard used by the London Police Department was 0.1% error rate.

The criteria for appearing on the original list of people being monitored are also unclear, and the person LFR was looking for said the categories were also disconnected. The list itself was also inaccurate, and there were cases in which a person who had already been tried was listed on the list.

Problems are also pointed out in the operation itself. Experts point out that the question is when will the London Police Department decide to stop using the LFR.

Of course, an official from the department operating the LFR said he was disappointed with the negative and unbalanced tone of the report, refuting that he thought he was expecting an innovative way to fight crime to keep London safe. Related information can be found here .