Home Office kept police facial recognition flaws to itself, UK data watchdog fumes
- Reference: 1765196172
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/12/08/ico_home_office_rfr/
- Source link:
Emily Keaney, deputy commissioner for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), said the regulator only learned last week about historical bias in the algorithm used by UK police forces for [1]retrospective facial recognition (RFR) within the Police National Database (PND).
"It's disappointing that we had not previously been told about this, despite regular engagement with the Home Office and police bodies as part of our wider work to hold government and the public sector to account on how data is being used in their services.
[2]
"While we appreciate the valuable role technology can play, public confidence in its use is paramount, and any perception of bias and discrimination can exacerbate mistrust. The ICO is here to support and assist the public sector to get this right."
[3]
[4]
The ICO has requested urgent clarity from the Home Office to assess the situation and determine next steps.
Keaney's comments follow updated accuracy tests published on December 4, conducted by the National Physical Laboratory and commissioned by the Home Office. The tests examined two algorithms: Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5, currently used by the Police National Database, and Idemia MBSS FR, planned for future deployments.
[5]
While Idemia's test results were nearly perfect both in ideal testing conditions and realistic operational deployments, Cognitec's algorithm showed significant weaknesses when identifying certain demographics under strict settings designed to eliminate false positives.
In Cognitec's case, when no restrictions were applied, it correctly matched an image of a suspect to an individual in the PND 99.9 percent of the time. However, when testers forced it to return results only when similarity scores were set to very high levels, effectively eliminating false positives, its accuracy dropped to 91.9 percent.
This strict setting showed the algorithm was best at identifying Asian subjects, with a 98 percent success rate. White subjects were correctly identified 91 percent of the time, and Black subjects in 87 percent of cases.
[6]
When the similarity scores were dropped but remained at high levels, false positive rates increased, disproportionately affecting certain demographics. In these tests, Black females were more likely to be falsely matched to a reference image than Black males, returning false positive rates of 9.9 percent and 0.4 percent respectively.
[7]UK pushes ahead with facial recognition expansion despite civil liberties backlash
[8]Uncle Sam wants to scan your iris and collect your DNA, citizen or not
[9]Metropolitan Police hails facial recognition tech after record year for arrests
[10]Smile! Uncle Sam wants to scan your face on the way in – and out
Removing gender from the equation, false positive rates for White subjects (0.04 percent) were far lower than those for Asian (4 percent) and Black (5.5 percent) subjects.
The The Register understands that RFR results are never used as evidence before undergoing a manual review, reducing the risk of images being used incorrectly, and training and guidance have been reissued to police forces nationwide following the report.
The government has also asked the Inspectorate of Constabulary to review police use of facial recognition technology, with assistance from the Forensic Science Regulator, in light of the tests.
A Home Office spokesperson, said it takes the findings of the report seriously. "A new algorithm has been independently tested and procured, which has no statistically significant bias. It will be tested early next year and will be subject to evaluation.
"Our priority is protecting the public. This game-changing technology will support police to put criminals and rapists behind bars. There is human involvement in every step of the process and no further action would be taken without trained officers carefully reviewing results."
The tests were published as the Home Office launched a consultation to [11]expand police use of facial recognition , despite myriad criticisms of the technology across its varying types of deployment.
The UK government spends tens of millions on facial recognition technology every year, and has consistently [12]vouched for its efficacy since the PND launched in 2011. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/08/uk_secretly_allows_facial_recognition/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aTcEJ07lnxrSRDd2pRklWwAAAAY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTcEJ07lnxrSRDd2pRklWwAAAAY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aTcEJ07lnxrSRDd2pRklWwAAAAY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTcEJ07lnxrSRDd2pRklWwAAAAY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aTcEJ07lnxrSRDd2pRklWwAAAAY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/05/uk_cops_facial_recognition/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/04/dhs_wants_to_collect_biometric_data/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/03/metropolitan_police_hails_facial_recognition/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/29/us_foreigner_facial_scans/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/05/uk_cops_facial_recognition/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/03/metropolitan_police_hails_facial_recognition/
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
So: in future do we trust what the police say ?
How utterly stupid of them to not be open; many are not trustful of the police - this will only make things worse.
Business as Usual
If, at first, you can't get what you want, just lie!
An approach which has served government admirably for countless decades.
Use in evidence not the only problem
Okay, say they don't use the unreliable matches in evidence. That doesn't stop them guiding investigations or even using them to lean on suspects to get an admission of guilt. A fair few people will confess when leaned on hard enough even if they're not guilty of whatever they're accused of. It might all be used appropriately but history suggests otherwise, especially since it seems there's been a cover-up.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It seems whoever has been tasked with watching the watchmen is lax in their duties.
Yet again.
We really need a crop of politicians who aren't scared to piss people off with the truth instead of the populist liars we have now
Seconded to the Home Office some 11 years ago for 10 months. While we provided some technology for one of the agencies, I was also asked to look at funded research, projections for success and hurdles. One of those was 'predictive crime prevention'. Our report was supressed - certainly by the management and maybe the minister (May was in charge). They just did not like hard evidence and proijections for misuse.
I wish I found your post surprising.
Surprised??
Quote: "...The tests examined two algorithms....."
Once again the STASI fail to say what CCTV was tested AGAINST!!!!!
So..........CCTV against Home Office passport pictures?
So..........CCTV against DVLC driving licence pictures?
So..........CCTV against META (Facebook? WhatsApp?) pictures?
Nope......no one is saying how the tests were conducted............
Nope......no one is talking about GDPR.......................................
Why am I not surprised?
Easy
"Our priority is protecting the public. This game-changing technology will support police to put criminals and rapists behind bars..."
So just put bars around the Home Office then, seems pretty straightforward. Once it's proven out, could be done all over the world.
The Register
Doesn’t anyone at the ICO read The Register?
It’s been discussed here for absolute yonks. By vultures and commentards both.
Re: The Register
Probably not. There's a few of the commentariat who are civil or public servants (self included), but numerically the public sector is hugely under-represented. I'd reckon the likely explanation is that the Reg appeals to people who are or were at the sharp end of IT but there's few public sector employees who are techies, on account of most IT being contracted.
Rapists are criminals, does the HomeOffice spokesperson need a Venn diagram?
"Our priority is protecting the public. This game-changing technology will support police to put criminals and rapists behind bars".
"Our priority is protecting the public."
One of the things the public should be protected from is misuse of policing. We have seen several well-publicised miscarriages of justice recently, especially if "policing" includes private powers of prosecution as wielded by the Post Office.
It raises the question of whether concealment of a flaw from the regulator constitutes misfeasance in public office.