This week it was announced that there would be an expansion of the London police force’s use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology. Following a decade of use of the face-matching software with mobile camera vans, and then a pilot deployment with fixed cameras in Croydon, new fixed-camera operations will start in London’s West End and Soho.

The Met were early adopters of this technology in 2016, largely writing their own rules for deployment. In April 2026, the UK’s High Court ruled that the current Metropolitan Police use of LFR is lawful and proportionate. This latest development is then a further erosion of the liberties of the general public, but is unlikely to actually prevent any crime.

LFR scans passing faces but only captures a person’s image if their face is matched to one on the watchlist. Then a human police officer intervenes to offer the matchee a chance to prove they are NOT the wanted individual. Your own face could put you in the position of showing your passport to the police to identify yourself. Most people will be unaware that their faces have even been scanned.

Past surveys of UK public opinion have found divided views: few are completely opposed to LFR, and a large majority support its use at riots and football matches; even at peaceful protests, support outweighs opposition. The government’s own research found a majority in favor of its use even for fraud and antisocial behavior. A slight majority say deployment in their local High Street would make them feel safer, and are willing to accept a loss of privacy to catch more criminals.

On the other hand, around a third said they’d be unlikely to attend a protest or a picket line if LFR were in use. Given that it has already been used at selected protests, this suggests that routine LFR use may have a chilling effect on freedom of assembly and peaceful public protest.

It’s less clear that LFR deters violent protesters, who often cover their faces anyway, or rioters carried away in the heat of the moment. It might, however, enable police to arrest people who have previously been involved in protests, peaceful or otherwise. One arrest in the Croydon pilot deployment was of a woman who failed to attend court for an assault in 2004. This reveals both the wide net cast by the police watchlist and the fact that anyone wanted by the police will need to keep a low profile for a very long time.

However, the choice of target areas suggests that the Met is keen to act against perceived lawlessness in busy streets and shopping areas, rather than unruly demonstrations. These “crime hotspots” will use “intelligence-led” watchlists created not more than 24 hours in advance. In theory, an individual could be spotted one day on CCTV grabbing a phone or shoplifting, and be spotted by LFR and stopped by a police officer the next.

Previous offenders who are suspected of being about to commit a “Relevant Hotspot Offense Type” for that location may also be placed on the watchlist, and pre-emptively stopped by police. Being repeatedly reminded that the police have a beady AI eye on them might deter repeat offenders, at least enough to make them shift their activities to a less-surveilled location.

In practice, though, it may be harder to reassure the public that London’s streets are newly safe and law-abiding. We already have technology that allows the owners of stolen phones to track their location, but few victims find the police willing to follow up, even when given exact locations for stolen goods.

If there is a sense of impunity for low-level crime, it would take a lot of arrests, followed up by court appearances and deterrent penalties, to shift the odds of getting caught in the mind of a potential offender. Given the lack of resources in both police forces and the justice system, that seems unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, the price we all pay is further erosion of our freedom to move about in public without showing biometric ID — our faces — at the silent checkpoint.

---

Timandra Harkness presents the BBC Radio 4 series, FutureProofing and How To Disagree. Her book, Technology is Not the Problem, is published by Harper Collins.

TimandraHarknes

---