Martyn’s Law: How and why our facial recognition software should be used to keep people safe
In the wake of the findings from the Manchester Arena Inquiry following the terrorist bombing in May 2017, new legislation is set to become law later this spring. Dubbed Martyn’s Law after one of the victims of the attack, this legislation will impose obligations on public premises to increase their preparedness for, and protection from, a terrorist attack by requiring them to take steps to mitigate the threat. Designed to protect, our facial recognition technology provides a reliable and efficient means of keeping people safe by identifying those individuals known to be a risk.
On the 22nd May 2017, 22 people were killed in a terror attack that took place during an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena. One of the victims was 29-year-old Martyn Hett.
Martyn’s Law: What is it and how does it work?
Following the findings of the Manchester Arena Inquiry and prompted by the loss of her son, Martyn’s mother began a compelling campaign for better security at venues in a bid to protect the lives of others against future terrorist threats. The Terrorism Protection of Premises Bill, also known as Martyn’s Law, is expected to be made law later this spring, and once passed, will impose a requirement on those responsible for certain venues and events to mitigate the threat from terrorism.
To avoid placing an unnecessary burden on smaller business, Martyn’s Law will introduce a tiered model, depending on the capacity of the premises or event and the activity taking place.
Standard Tier Premises: Locations which can host between 100 to 799 people will need to follow ‘Standard Tier’ regulations. They will need to undertake terrorism protection training and complete a templated Emergency Action Plan provided by the Home Office, as well as putting appropriate and proportionate measures in place to improve their preparedness based on this assessment.
Enhanced Tier Premises: For locations with a capacity above 800, ‘Enhanced Tier’ rules will apply. This will require more detailed risk assessments, security planning and staff training. These premises will also require a ‘Designated Senior Officer’ (DSO) to be placed in charge of overall security for the venue. This individual is responsible for the implementation of reasonably practicable security measures to reduce the risk of, and harm caused by, terrorist acts occurring at, or near the vicinity. Measures must include, for example, those relating to the monitoring of the premises, as well as procedures to be followed in the event of an attack.
Limited exemptions to the capacity requirements apply to education establishments and places of worship. Guidance and training materials will also be available to premises with a capacity of under 100, should they want additional support.
How can facial recognition technology (FRT) be used in conjunction with Martyn’s Law?
Designed first and foremost to protect, our facial recognition technology provides those tasked with the security of public places with a reliable and efficient means of keeping people safe. By accurately identifying known individuals, even at difficult angles, in challenging lighting, or with partially covered faces, our software provides a pragmatic solution to the ever-evolving threat from terrorism and lone wolves.
By ‘watching the doors’, anyone that enters the vicinity who is unwelcome (whether previous offenders, abusive or violent individuals, or those on a police-issued watchlist) is immediately detected, with security alerted, and the response team deployed immediately to the area.
When operating an open, public environment, the capacity to identify persons of interest is key to maintaining the security of the environment, which is why we believe FRT is such a crucial component in the implementation of Martyn’s Law.
Why our FRT should be adopted in response to Martyn’s Law:
The need to deploy our FRT has never been more compelling. Rather than relying on venues to implement enhanced security measures on a voluntary basis, Martyn’s Law has now made it compulsory to reduce the risk from terrorism and increase public safety. Put simply, there is now a legal duty to protect - and our technology does just this.
This point is backed up by the fact that FRT is now widely used across the UK. The government has directed all police forces to develop and introduce the software to assist in its fight against serious crime and national security issues. Its efficacy is undeniable. As such, facial recognition technology offers a pragmatic and reassuring solution for venues in respect of their security and can be particularly powerful when used in conjunction with local law enforcement to ensure the protection of their premises.
Of course, a system is only as good as the data within it, and some have questioned how effective and meaningful the adoption of our technology would be if they do not have the relevant reference data on high-risk persons. However, by liaising with their supporting law enforcement to make a request, the individual responsible for the venue would have complied fully with their obligation to attempt to “ensure that all such reasonably practicable measures are in place.” Equally, if support was not given, the liability would then be transferred from the person responsible at the venue to the relevant law enforcement department who did not provide adequate support.
Most importantly, venues should be seeking to implement best practice, with the lowest level of impact for maximum benefit. Unquestionably, our technology does just this and we believe that for venues to meet their obligations under Martyn’s Law, it is imperative that FRT is considered as part of a package of measures. Highly sensitive, our software has been designed to pick up those persons of interest even with sub-parr images, providing an excellent level of reassurance to those tasked with the security of venues.
Finally, it is worth considering the impact of data privacy versus the benefit of applying FRT. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the toughest privacy and security law in the world, dictating how our personal information is used by organisations, businesses and governments. That said, the collection of personal data is completely legal provided there is a specified, explicit purpose (amongst a wider criteria). In this case, Clause 15 of the Terrorism Protection of Premises Bill, states that the person responsible for enhanced duty premises or a qualifying public event must ensure that all such reasonably practicable measures are put in place to reduce the risk of acts of terrorism. As personal biometric data of the general public is immediately expunged from the software, the impact on data privacy is minimal, whereas the ability to prevent a catastrophic event is significantly increased. We believe that the balance therefore lies heavily in favour of the utilisation of FRT. And, as the data is being used for a specified, explicit purpose, namely, to prevent unnecessary human suffering, it is not just sensible, but absolutely advisable to implement FRT. Secondary to this, is the need to mitigate the impact that terrorism has on the economy as the financial impact of a single terrorist attack alone is described to be in the range of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds (the policy and analysis institute, RAND Europe, puts the cost of terrorism in the UK from 2004 to 2016 to be an estimated £43.7 billion). In any case, the use of facial recognition technology is completely justified under Section 6 and Article 9 of GDPR, as there is ‘substantial public interest’ in the deployment of the FRT software. However, the introduction of Martyn’s Law now makes a particularly compelling case for the implementation of facial recognition technology at larger venues as there is the additional ‘duty to protect’.
Ultimately, it is clear that the use of FRT provides a pragmatic and proportionate method of mitigating the existential risks that exist – undoubtedly, the intent to deter terrorist attacks and the legitimacy of our technology now sits wholeheartedly within the law. Increasingly, it is accepted that the impact on the right to privacy is minimal; and, the minimal impact it has on our privacy is offset by the justification, proportionality, and necessity of its use, reinforced by the introduction of Martyn’s Law.
If you would like to learn more, or if you are responsible for the security of a venue and would like to discuss how best we can support you, please get in touch with us today.
The content of this article is the opinion of The Face Recognition Company Limited and cannot be taken as legal advice or guidance. Please contact us at info@thefacerecognitioncompany.com if you wish to discuss further.