Essex Police Employs Biometric AI Data

Those in Essex, England, may have recently seen facial recognition trucks driving through the streets discreetly compiling data. England has long employed CCT cameras to capture criminal activity, but police in Essex are now using advanced biometric data to track each and every citizen.

Essex is using Corsight AI biometric software for its civilian monitoring program. The company has expanded its services across the world. “Our mission is to radically enhance the world of facial recognition technologies while holding ourselves to the highest ethical standards in personal privacy protection,” the Israel-based company states on its website. They can embed their software within existing cameras and track down individuals based on their biometric data.

The ethics behind such measures present a challenge. Who has access to this wealth of data? Individual organizations in the UK must obtain permission and be transparent about their policies, but no such restrictions exist for the government. We have seen countless data breaches in recent years, with independent hacker groups infiltrating every supposedly secure data center. Civil liberties groups believe the government is infringing upon human rights by spying on their every move, but governments no longer permit individual freedoms.

The last significant law that was passed surrounding these measures was in 2018 when the UK put forth the Data Protection Act that details how personal data may be collected, processed, and protected by law. Naturally, the government claims that they are only collecting data for public safety and will not misuse the technology. The law remains vague and technology has certainly advanced since 2018.

Yet, the UK is calling Corsight AI a victory and citing clean-cut arrests made using the technology. “In Southend, there were also five positive alerts, which resulted in two arrests—one for harassment and one for sexual assault,” police stated. Police claim that Corsight AI is primarily monitoring known offenders, people on watchlists, and “protected vulnerable individuals at risk of harm.” The program claims it “almost instantly” deletes user data if they do not meet the aforementioned criteria.

“Our live facial recognition technology is used to locate people we want to speak to in connection with ongoing investigations and to manage people with court orders or conditions. Criminals cannot think they can walk around our communities without being caught,” claimed Assistant Chief Constable Andy Pritchard calls Essex Police.

UK Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner Fraser Sampson admits that private companies will have access to user data. “We, the people, are now using sophisticated surveillance tools once the preserve of state intelligence agencies, routinely and at minimal financial cost,” he writes. “We freely share personal datasets – including our facial images – with private companies and government on our smart devices for access control, identity verification and threat mitigation. From this societal vantage point it seems reasonable for the police to infer that many citizens not only support them using new remote biometric technology but also expect them to do so, to protect communities, prevent serious harm and detect dangerous offenders.”

All of this is based on the premise that the government is there to protect citizens rather than treating everyone like a potential criminal.

Other nations will soon adopt this technology that was once reserved for warzones. Israel is using the program in its hospitals to identify deceased victims from the war with Hamas. The Mall of America has employed the service to deter shoplifting but public surveillance measures in the US have been met with a pushback. Paris used the AI service to monitor the crowds at the Olympic games.

The government must tighten its grip on the public as we move into 2032. We have seen the government take tyrannical measures to restrict freedom of speech both in person and online. Now, governments want to track their citizens’ movements, and the public has no say in the matter.