- Regulating the use of automatic recognition technology (R (on the application of Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Ground one
- Ground two
- Ground three
- Case details
Corporate Crime analysis: The use of live automatic facial recognition technology (AFR) is an interference with the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) right to respect for a private life, unless it is ‘in accordance with the law’—the Police were not able to demonstrate that there were enough safeguards as to the criteria for being put on the watchlist of ‘suspects’ and where the cameras would be placed to monitor members of the public. In short, there was not a sufficient legal framework for the use of AFR. Written by Sailesh Mehta, barrister, at Red Lion Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial