I think so, yes. There needs to be an appropriately rigorous public engagement process. I can talk a little bit more about that.
Surveys have been carried out by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the London Policing Ethics Panel, so we have some data on public attitudes, although it is limited. As with any poll, we should be careful not to take one poll as the last word. However, if we had a number of pieces of public research and surveys, we could perhaps start to discern a trend. The study that was carried out by Cardiff University also contained some data on public attitudes.
I sense that, so far, the public’s view has been positive but very mixed. There is some support for facial recognition, but that varies, depending on what it might be intended to be used for. It seems from the limited surveys that have been done that there is more support for using facial recognition in connection with serious crimes, but less support for using it for more minor crimes. I thought that it was interesting that, whereas there was majority public support overall, according to the London Policing Ethics Panel report, there was significant opposition among the younger age group. Such factors need to taken into account.
The priority is to have a public engagement exercise, and that could involve similar kinds of surveys. I wonder whether the question is perhaps one for a citizens jury framework. It has been interesting to read some of the reflections about citizens juries. One survey participant spoke about how the boundary between experts and citizens is more blurred than we might think. Members of the public can bring their own experiences to bear on such questions in some quite informed ways. There is always the difficult question of what constitutes public approval, but the least that could be done is to utilise all possible public engagement methods.