Extract from internal document; 'Can We Change The Police?' (Michael Heverin)

Chapter 5. Use of Force.

The use of Tasers by police forces across England and Wales has increased by more than 500% over the last decade, from 3,573 incidents in 2009-10 to 23,451 in 2018-19

In the year ending March 2022 there were just over 41,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales.

assault without injury saw an increase of 11%, with injury an increase of 2.6% on the previous year.

The rise of taser usage of course has a connection to more officers now being issued with  them. But I do believe there is an underlying factor that causes a self-fulfilling effect that having these sidearms will inevitably cause a rise of use when  previously the officer would deal with the situation differently. This is obviously paradoxical, as the officer did not have the taser in the previous instance, so they have little choice but to act differently.

To explain the theory further first we must look at weapons management/containment. This is where a firearms officer in training is taught procedure such as holding, storing, holstering and drawing their weapon safely. Part of this is understanding that being in a public place with a firearm arm creates further considerations. For instance a firearms officer would not want somebody to stand within about 3 feet of their personal space to avoid the unlikely scenario of a person trying to grab their gun. Following on from this is last thing this same officer wants is to wrestle on the ground with a suspect in attempting an arrest. The taser, although not deadly force has the same effect on the user to avoid direct contact and to draw the weapon merely as a tool to facilitate compliance. The problem comes when they are greeted with non compliance. what do they then do, re holster the taser and start again?

The unfortunate consequences of this is that people in the UK are being tasered for non-compliance, in the US they are being shot, and often without any direct threat to person discharging the weapon. But the reasons for a suspect not doing what the an officers instructs them can be many and varied including drug and mental health related. And does this result in the skill sets needed to carry out an effective and safe arrest without an overriding threat from a firearm then get lost?

---

***restricted***
--

Proposal 1

Training suitable officers to a much greater ability to arrest and restrain without the threat of further force.

emphasise should also be placed on learning and dealing better with mental health and drug issues that have been responsible for so many deaths whilst restraining and in police custody.

Overall these skill sets should instil confidence and ability in any situation whilst ensuring the prisoners safety

and the completion of this training is seen as a major achievement on a par with firearms or advanced pursuit driving, and accompanied with a uniform patch.

Proposal 2

***restricted***

Chapter 11.

(Trust) in technology

The introduction of technology through public mandate and oversight.

Liberty. 11 Aug 2022

Headline: ‘WHAT IS POLICE FACIAL RECOGNITION AND HOW DO WE STOP IT?’

Wired.  9th Nov 2023 (Mat Burgess)

‘Backed by the Conservative government, police forces across England and Wales are being told to rapidly expand their use of the highly controversial technology, which globally has led to false arrests, misidentifications, and lives derailed. Police have been told to double their use of face searches against databases by early next year- 45 million passport photos could be opened up to searches and police are increasingly working with stores to try to identify shoplifters. Simultaneously, more regional police forces are testing real-time systems in public places.

The rapid expansion of face recognition comes at a time when trust in policing levels are at record lows, following a series of high-profile scandals. Civil liberties groups, experts, and some lawmakers have called for bans on the use of face recognition technology, particularly in public places, saying it infringes on people’s privacy and human rights, and isn’t a “proportionate” way to find people suspected of committing crimes.

Cops in England and Wales can hunt for potential criminals using two main kinds of face

recognition. First, there are live face recognition systems (LFR): These usually include cameras mounted on police vans that scan people’s faces as they walk by and check them against a “watchlist” of wanted people. The LFR technology is deployed for some big events and announced in advance by the police. Second, there’s retrospective face recognition (RFR), where images from CCTV, smartphones, and doorbell cameras can be fed into a system that tries to identify the person based on millions of existing photos’

The police  often find themselves in the ever present rock and hard place. As more advanced technology becomes available, the resistance to use it becomes greater. Along with budgetary cuts and complaints of crimes going uninvestigated, I believe one of the strongest arguments for greater use of these systems is the cost savings and greater efficiency that it would bring.

And is the assumption of public outrage of these systems true? would a Liberty headline ever read; MAN SAID HE WOULDN'T MIND FACIAL RECOGNITION IN HIS AREA AS LONG AS IT STOPPED PEOPLE  GETTING ROBBED.

Quite often in our polarized political environment we generally get the viewpoint of people who shout the loudest, so more detailed research is needed with varied scenarios of technology use put forward to the public, and collate their opinions whilst avoiding these assumptions.

This could be part of an underlying issue regarding lack of consultation,  as the police fear the inevitable backlash, they tend to use these systems with more secrecy and might possibly further undermine trust from the wider public. Could the problem be not the technology itself but how it is imposed upon us?

To explore this in greater detail we should start by asking a simple question, are you for or against facial recognition technology? This is far too simple a question as many people now use the tech as an ID passcode on their smartphones, so it’s not the technology at fault it’s who’s using it and why.

The following examples demonstrate two versions of facial recognition technology. Situated in a  supermarket they will hopefully produce 2 different reactions: 

(Version 1). Age verification:

As supermarkets replace staff with self service checkouts, these are often understaffed as well,   creating  delays as customers seek age verification.

A voluntary scheme could be introduced that allows people to pre register with ID checked and a facial image stored. The process of age verification is now just a case looking into a small camera at the till. It's also possible to link this to loyalty card and payment systems, but always allowing the customer to opt in or out.

(Version 2). Individual recognition marketing:

This scenario sees the customer entering the shop through a facial recognition system. This is linked to additional systems at the till area that even without using a loyalty card systems can link data on their purchasing habits at every store within that brand. A journey around that store will be accompanied by marketing on large TV screens targeted towards that individual customer. This includes special offers on their regular purchase, reminders that they might need, essentials such as milk based on calendar patterns. Unhealthy consumption of high levels of fat, salt and sugar could also be monitored and healthier alternatives suggested.  Estimates of alcohol intake can also be factored and in the event of surpassing recommended levels any marketing can be suspended, In the most severe cases helplines and advice can appear on screen. Overall creating a useful and insightful shopping partner...

...or maybe not.

I think most people would find version 2 a top down, intrusive and unacceptable, but this sci-fi /dystopian vision is often how this technology is portrayed.

Version 1 that I personally would sign up for, and can be beneficial to both consumer and business, but does this suffer being associated with 2.  Any use by a company of facial recognition is therefore perceived as  sinister, that in-turn seems to be delaying any roll out, regardless of benefits.

Both examples are using the same technology in the same location but the key difference between them is the factor of choice.

Using facial recognition without consent will always create resistance and to introduce these systems within a commercial environment it is important to communicate the difference to the public and gain consent and trust.

However the problems faced by the police will struggle to shake off these factors. The nature of policing is top down and gaining consent of what can be described as mass monitoring will always be an uphill challenge.

                                                                                             copyright 2024 brecon research group.