Live facial recognition (LFR) sits in a tricky place. Used well, it can help locate a wanted person quickly and reduce harm. Used badly, it becomes exactly the kind of quiet, persistent surveillance that corrodes public confidence and leaves everyone, including policing, worse off, writes Ellie Hurst, pictured, Director of the information security consultancy Advent IM.
That is why the Home Office consultation on a new legal framework for LFR and biometric technologies matters. The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner described this moment as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get governance right. I agree, not because the technology is new, but because the pace and scale of deployment are changing, and the rules need to keep up. This is not a debate about being for or against facial recognition. It is a debate about legitimacy. If the public believe the rules are clear, enforced, and rooted in necessity and proportionality, the technology has a chance of being accepted in the narrow circumstances where it is genuinely justified. If the rules feel vague, inconsistent, or optional, trust will not just drift away, it will actively run for the hills.
Framework for a start
A principles-led, purpose-based framework is the right starting point. If legislation tries to hard-code todayโs technical definitions, it will be outdated before it is operational. A technology-agnostic approach focuses attention where it belongs: what problem is being solved, why this method is necessary, what safeguards are in place, and how the public can be confident the system is accountable. That mindset should feel familiar to anyone who works in governance, risk, and compliance. Good governance is not about admiring the tool. It is about stress-testing the use case, understanding the risks, and designing controls that actually work in real life. In security we call this secure by design. Trust is not a feature you bolt on later, it is built into decisions from the outset. Data protection is not a barrier to innovation. It is one of the few things capable of making innovation durable. The Information Commissionerโs Office has been clear that existing data protection law already provides strong foundations around fairness, transparency, accuracy, and security. Those principles are exactly what you need when decisions may affect people in public spaces, at speed, and at scale.
Misidentified fear
We also need to be honest about what drives public anxiety here. It is not only the idea of being โscannedโ. It is the fear of being misidentified, unfairly singled out, or quietly tracked without meaningful safeguards. Where independent testing or reporting suggests performance varies across different groups, the answer is not to shrug and hope for the best. The answer is to require robust, transparent evaluation, publish what matters, and make clear what happens when standards are not met. It would also be a mistake to treat LFR purely as an ethics question. It is an information security and resilience question too. A compromised watchlist, a tampered model, poor access controls, or weak supplier assurance can produce operational harm as well as legal and reputational damage. If you cannot evidence end-to-end security, you cannot credibly claim end-to-end responsibility. One reason this matters is that LFR rarely lives in a neat policing-only box. Cameras are owned and operated across local authorities, transport networks, town centres, major events, and privately managed estates. For government, defence, and critical national infrastructure, the question is not only whether you deploy LFR, but how you assure the wider ecosystem of suppliers, integrators, and operators who touch the data and the kit.
Essential clarity
This is where the oversight landscape matters. The consultation recognises the value of clearer, more consistent regulatory oversight. That clarity is not just helpful for practitioners, it is essential for the public. If multiple bodies are involved, the boundaries need to be explicit, the handovers need to be designed, and the accountability needs to be obvious. Memoranda of understanding, statutory consultation duties, and enforceable codes of practice can turn โjoined-up oversightโ from a slogan into something that holds up under scrutiny. Transparency is the other non-negotiable pillar. A sign on a lamppost is not transparency. Transparency looks like clear published thresholds for use, meaningful reporting on outcomes and error rates, independent evaluation, and a route to challenge or redress when the technology gets it wrong. The public does not demand perfection, but they do expect competence and honesty.
Raised stakes
Future-focused governance also means honesty about where this tech family is heading. The consultationโs broader scope, including other biometric and inferential capabilities, raises the stakes. If the framework is intended to be adaptable, it also needs hard boundaries to prevent mission creep. When activities fall outside the prescribed purposes and safeguards, they should be prohibited unless Parliament chooses to expand the scope following proper scrutiny.
Opportunity
There is a real opportunity here for the UK to set a benchmark for responsible, rights-respecting use of LFR and biometrics. The direction of travel is promising. The hard work now is delivery: rigorous standards, consistent oversight, transparent reporting, and security by design that takes supply chain risk seriously. If we do that, we get something rare in modern technology debates: a framework that enables legitimate innovation while earning the public trust required to use it. If we do not, we will be stuck in the same loop of controversy, legal challenge, and eroded confidence, and nobody wins in that scenario.
