UK secretly allows facial recognition scans of passport, immigration databases Privacy groups report a surge in UK police facial recognition scans of databases secretly stocked with passport photos lacking parliamentary oversight. Big Brother Watch says the UK government has allowed images from the country's passport and immigration databases to be made available to facial recognition systems, without …
Also the recent age verification for the sake of child safety.
If you really care about children then tax the super-rich to offer better education, healthcare, affordable housing. And start pruning government branches to make it spend less, as Milei does.
Why billionaires are funding the far right: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oaNJ48SP998
You will only get real change when you tax everybody more. Why Denmark is the Happiest Country in the World. The 'paying tax is bad' and 'we can do it cheaper using businesses' are some of the biggest cons of the last 40 years or so. Why? Just look how divided our society has become. Does that suggest good governance?
At the risk of invoking Godwin, I believe that one of the first things the Nazis always did when they invaded a country was ti seize all paperwork at local and national offices, they knew the secret to controlling the masses was to first know the "what and where" so they could achieve their sickening goals.
... then you are all good?
I mean really, get a grip, this is absolutely only ever intended to get the "bad guys".
If you are a "good guy" then you have nothing to fear.
I, for one, welcome our wonderful new Labour led overlords.
Cracking down on those evil grannies with their banners promoting terrorist organisations which spray paint stuff on RAF bases.
Good use of tax payers money I say!
But not very often... 516 requests in total from over 30 different forces? That doesn't sound like much of a problem, or is each access a bulk download of all updated images or something?
They still shouldn't be doing a single request, without a court order; but given the numbers we usually deal with, it seems like an incredibly small, on average 0.045 requests per day per police force.
What law are the police currently in breach off?
Well, I'd be interested to see the written statement telling us what purposes our passport or immigration photographs would be used for. I had a quick look but couldn't find anything.
Possible violations of data privacy legislation there.
Although it's probably weasel words like "verificaton of identity for government purposes" - which would cover just about everything :(
"So just paint a big sign on the cliffs at Dover: "People entering these premises may be photographed for nefarious purposes""
Don't be daft, the article refers to scans of the legit, passport-holding residents of the UK. Arrive through informal channels and there's no problem at all.
Didn't that sink within minutes?
I vaguely recall another attempt in a harbour that didn't quite make it out to sea either.
:)
Actually, I think they sort of made it.
Unusual, their usual success rate was a tad lower which was part of the fun. Except for the North Pole trip, that was truly epic.
I'd imagine they use this as their legal Data Protection reasons:
They should publicise this usage though.
If the police are acting on a warrant, they can access all the data necessary to support the investigation, and they will not share that information with the public in order to safeguard the investigation.
Please inform us which warrant(s) apply to PC Roboplod's repeated attempts at mass surveillance of everyone. Which of their alleged investigations depend on snoopercams?
Is all-pervasive, mass surveillance proportionate and reasonable in a democratic society?.
Perhaps you're a troll. Or one of the "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" morons.
See R (Bridges) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2020].
They are still in breach of this court sentence from 2020.
"Why is this a problem?"
...said someone to a Polish Jew in 1930 when they complained about having their religion registered in official files.
Your inability to consider how this might impact certain people in terrible ways in the future shows a distinct lack of imagination (and an apparent inability to learn from history).
You're the one who needs to engage with reality. Fuck off back to China or North Korea.
You're clearly deluded if you think organised criminals are an existential threat to the UK or any other democratic country. Or that this supposed threat - which only exists in your imagination and the Daily Heil - justifies Stasi-flavoured pervasive surveillance of the entire population.
False positives may actually occur, but do you think they are likely to go all the way to a criminal conviction?
What you are saying is that you are prepared to let the most dangerous of criminals potentially go free because of a highly unlikely scenario over a flaw in the process? That is not a mature way to balance the odds.
Well that’s the difficult thing.
First, getting arrested is no laughing matter, especially if they think they’ve caught someone who has been up to some ghastly activities. It can never be consequence free.
Second, the restoration of your liberty may involve proving a negative, especially if they have merely circumstantial corroborating evidence. Depending upon the circumstances that may take a court case, which takes time. During this period of time your entire life has likely been torn apart. And having seen how juries actually behave from the inside, you don’t want to be in a position of trusting one of those to see through the police’s errors.
Thirdly, the real perpetrator is no longer being pursued. The chances of a successful arrest and conviction diminish.
Fourthly, imagine what happens if the country starts voting more for Reform-like parties. Normalisation of some pretty potent powers of state isn’t a good idea if you then vote for a party that has a different view of how restrained the state should be.
As we’ve seen in the USA, voting for Trump is no protection from being wrongfully deported by his regime, so the “it’ll never happen to me” line of political analysis of one’s voting options is unwise, but people still do it. Be careful what you let politicians and the state do.
What you are saying is that you are prepared to let the most dangerous of criminals potentially go free because of a highly unlikely scenario over a flaw in the process? That is not a mature way to balance the odds.
The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any democracy's criminal justice system. If you can't accept that, emigrate to a country that doesn't have that concept.
You're also making a deeply stupid argument. It's not a choice about letting dangerous criminals go free. The police already have the resources to deal with that and don't need round-the-clock mass surveillance of everyone on the off-chance they might catch a bad guy. Though I'm sure plenty of cops and idiot/authoritarian politicians have wet dreams about doing just that. I for one want to walk down the street unencumbered by snoopercams and demands to show my ID papers. If that means criminals get to do that too, so be it.
PS False positives (and false negatives) are not "a highly unlikely scenario". They're a design feature of every mass surveillance system. Just ask any of the innocent people who have been incorrectly apprehended by snoopercams and the like. Or get tripped up by the broken facial recognition systems at passport control. Plenty of cases have been documented and you don't need to look hard to find out about them.
I have seen a manufactured crime in the UK. Someone's gear was seeded with one or two images of CP during a burglary, and then the police was 'tipped off'.
The police took in a phone and a computer, but left literally HUNDREDS of SD cards alone. They found an image hidden in a backup (which most people don't even know how to get to and the victim of this was no expert), and a text sent to another phone which never arrived. There was so much wrong with that investigation that it should have never resulted in a conviction, but if the police wants their numbers and the judge is playing along with that you do not stand a chance - and so, this person's life was ruined.
If you're up against well funded people you stand zero chance, which is why (a) you use decent encryption and password protection and (b) you make sure that everything you do leaves a log you alone have access to.
Oh, the motive? The subject in question had the gall to rescue someone from a nation which doesn't treat its citizens all that well but which has an almost endless river of money.
Take it from me, your rights are absolutely no match for a large amount of money.
"False positives may actually occur, but do you think they are likely to go all the way to a criminal conviction?"
They have - and do. Often.
Stop trolling and take a cursory look at our long tradition of miscarriages of justice and innocent people getting banged up for crimes they didn't commit.
This is fantastic news:
In the 1940s we had no CCTV and 30,000 people in London were killed through violent crime
In the 50s we had East-end gangsters openly murdering people, while being kind to their dear old mums
In the 60s we had mobs of teenagers terrorizing seaside towns
In the 70s we lived in fear of terrorist bombings across the UK and BBC DJs presenters prowling the streets
Now with widespread CCTV/Facial recognition/AI we have the lowest levels of violent crime in history.
Excuse me, but are you smoking something hallucinogenic?
30,000 homicides in the 1940's? Are you being so crass as to include the victims of the Blitz in that?
The homicide rate rose gently until 2004/5, and then fell a little after. Why did it rise up and spike in 2004/5?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morecambe_Bay_cockling_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
We have so few homicides that events like this cause very big and obvious distortions of the long term trend. 30,000 a decade? Please.
What did we do 25 years ago? Finally banned lead in petrol.
Read up on atmospheric lead and violent crime.
Don't forget the legalisation of abortion. Controversial, I'll admit, but at least plausible and backed up by some degree of evidence.
This comment means either you are a Troll or have a level of innocence that is dangerous.
The 'nothing to hide' mantra is well known and flawed.
I have learnt over the years of my life that you cannot trust the people who have power, this means ANYONE who has a power advantage over others, no matter how senior or not they may be and no matter how small that advantage my be.
I was bought up to trust Police, Teachers, Lawyers etc etc ... as my parents had been taught when they grew up.
I have experienced both directly & indirectly people from this group using the power advantage to their favour and to the disfavour of innocent others.
I thought it was an exception, at first, BUT it happened too often to be an exception !!!
I learnt that I was naive and my parents had been also.
Simple so called 'innocent' things will be abused by people who can gain from it ... period.
This is what modern man is !!! ... respect, honor, fairness, gamesmanship ... to name a few concepts are ALL out of date and rare !!!
It pains me to see this BUT reality supports my view !!!
So, in a nutshell, I have plenty to fear even IF I have done no wrong !!!
:)
Post all your bank statements, medical records and details of everywhere you've been in the last couple of years. For bonus points, install webcams in your bedroom so the whole planet can be sure all your sexual activity is "legal". Install these throughout your house so PC Roboplod can continuously monitor what books/newspapers you read, which "money-laundering terrorists/paedophiles/drug dealers" are in your social circle, check your diet and drinking habits, track the porn you watch, find out how often you've parked on a double-yellow line, etc, etc.
After all if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.
BTW, I presume there are no curtains in your house because you're happy to let everyone look through your windows any time they like.
Maybe you should start with looking up the word "Corruption"
As for police having access to everything, that was also the basis for the TSA backdoor to your suitcase, which has become THE theft vector at airports (next to zip closure, which is why you're still better off with a hinged lid, but I digress).. As for what happens with police access, I invite you to look on Amazon and see just how easy it now is to buy TSA keys.
For your stance to be consistent I fully expect you not to lock your front door so you do not impair any policemen that want to look for the murderer they let escape in your neighbourhood.
For all your proclaimed "intellect" you seem to be remarkably short of an instinct for self preservation. That's a flaw that tends to correct itself in a fairly darwinistic manner..
This post has been deleted by its author
... when it comes to trusting Govt. promises that 'the legislation will only be used for the specific purposes intended in the legislation' - in RIPA's case it was claimed the legislation was for the prevention of terrorism and serious crime. The people who make such a claim don't believe it themselves, and neither should anyone else.
In reality it legitimised spying on people misusing their bins and other trivial misdemeanours..
I don’t recall any form of legislation to regulate the widespread collection/logging of vehicle registration numbers et al. It just seemed to come into operation via the backdoor and this seems to be more of the same. Slowly we seem to be sleepwalking into a total surveillance state - the killer move will be the withdrawal of cash as a means of payment.
The only (partial) solution is to not drive, don't go on holiday, or have a bus pass and to only leave your home with your shades and hood up.
Privacy is dead …
Unfortunately our political system has a long, ignoble, and largely accepted, tradition of paternalism, i.e. 'we know what is best for you, be a good little serf, shut up and let your betters get on with things you don't understand and shouldn't worry yourselves about'. Obviously our tradition is not an isolated one, but being a tradition it means such attitudes and behaviour are built in, and taken for granted as 'the way things are done'.
So, ANPR just quietly arriving, because... really comes as no surprise. The negative consequences of such behaviour are usually dismissed, kicked down the road, or only addressed (usually poorly) after the fact.
I have to disagree with you, it started long before Blair. It's partly down to the fact the the 'British' Civil Service and political power structures never suffered a serious revolution.
Ingrained attitudes and practices dating back to the feudal era, and later re-enforced through the arrogance of colonialism, have been passed down through generations of people.
Many of those people have been, and are, very talented and able, and not a few even have a genuine desire to serve the well being of the people and the nation, but they operate in a culture that 'has its little ways', and not so little ways, of going about things—that lingering paternalism, and unwillingness to listen to people who actually have half a clue what they are talking about.
Witness the current farcical shame over the handling of 'Palestine Action': the whole thing could have been handled perfectly properly through straightforward criminal charges, but no, someone decided someone needed to be made an example of—"We have information that we can't tell you about that makes these people 'terrorists'" Funny how 'they' can't tell 'us'; they being the 'parents', and us being the 'children'. And all the while debasing the meaning of the word 'terrorist' and the word 'democracy'.
Try Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
This is incorporated into UK law => it's time to take the Home Office and PC Roboplod for a kicking at the European Court for Human Rights. Again.
As usual, when actual leftists (and not the HR and focus grouped "left-wing" who want all the credit and none of the work), pop up, the state insists on collectively punishing the population:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/09/palestine-action-arrests-london-largest-protest-ban.
Your follow up article using FOI should be:
- How often are these requests for access made by the police?
- Are they done manually/automated?
- Is the amount statistically relevant (i.e. everyone, everyday, or 1 person once per year)?
- Ratio of access grants Vs denials
- Which police forces?
Some of these cannot be denied afaics on national security grounds such as ratio, police force names and general statistics.
This is to allay concerns that they may be no difference between requested access and direct access.
Even on this forum there appears to be some mixed opinions of this. Either we have an army of pro surveillance bots or some El Reg commentards are less enlightened than most of us thought.
For:
LFR and OFR is seen as a cost effective method to concentrate police resources. The first problem it's a drop in the ocean compared to the waste in government spending in general. The second more serious problem is it concentrates a massive amount of power in one place.
Against:
It is an exceptional revelation that privacy erosions like this are quietly rolled out(like PRISM). Demonstrating from government their ongoing intent to control everything including public transparency. It stinks and is another implementation of tech as a weapon.
The error in thinking seems to stem from the notion that police are there to prevent crime. They are not.
The police exist to enforce the law. That is to say, they are there to catch criminals.
There is a natural order to that process :
You break the law, the police then track you down and arrest you.
Not,
The police track everyone and if you break the law they arrest you.
The police should have no interest in any situation until after a law has been broken.
Otherwise why not just arrest everyone and let the courts sort it out?
Part of our freedom in this country is the freedom to break the law. Many laws have been overturned by the simple act of people refusing to abide by them.
This particularly applies to the freedom to protest. Currently it has become a catch22 situation because you can't protest the criminal consequences of protesting.
Paint a few planes - criminal!
Commit genocide - you need help with that?
Which is the real terrorism?
When Labour face the inevitable big time loss at the next election, I can imagine Starmer trying to delay the election by any means necessary.
He's already introduced the "wank license", had books banned in schools, had rival political sites taken down illegally etc.
It isn't beyond imagination that he's going to try to declare martial law. This will be because of "protests" etc. If it isn't martial law he will declare a new COVID/other disease lockdown to control anti-labour protests. Postal voting is WAY easier to manipulate than in-person ballot boxes.
He's already passed some of the most twisted messed up fascist laws we've ever had. Even down to literally pushing through Islamic blasphemy laws, where if you criticize Islam in ANY way you go to prison. And the Imams have promised to force their worshippers to vote labour in return.
This would just be another step to "protect the children" or some other BS lies.
Same PM who has taken £250,000 in cash bribes, 10s of thousands in jewellery and watches and holidays and dozens of £10k ballgowns for his wife etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2026
