‘Use of biome­tric facial recognition must be regulated’

PETALING JAYA: The use of biome­tric facial recognition CCTVs for law enforcement must be regulated and not breach privacy laws, say legal criminal and constitutional experts.

Human rights lawyer Andrew Khoo said there must be checks and balances as unregulated use of biometric-based surveillance technology was a breach of privacy and a violation of the right to life.

“Just as we have introduced laws to promote and regulate the protection of personal data, biometric-based data, even when captured by surveillance technology, should be recognised as yet another form of personal data,” he said yesterday.

Khoo, who is co-chair of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Commit­tee, said the use of such technology required monitoring, safeguards and sanctions for breaches of personal privacy.

“Local authorities should clearly not be permitted the unregulated use of this technology,” he said.

Constitutional lawyer Syahred­zan Johan said the use of the CCTVs must be confined only to public spaces for law enforcement purposes and should not intrude into the personal spaces of individuals.

“A static CCTV on a busy street to capture incidents of breach of the law is acceptable but a camera on a drone that can fly over private property would not be,” he said.

He cited China as an example where the CCTVs there were equip­ped with artificial intelligence to keep tabs on the activities of private individuals.

“These would certainly raise questions of privacy,” he said, adding that the ones used in Penang would not be of such nature.

Syahredzan said the CCTV footage itself could not be decisive evidence of an individual’s identity.

“It must still be tested for veracity in court,” he said, adding that caution must be placed on the over-re­liance of such footage during trial.

Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) criminologist Dr Geshina Ayu Mat Saat said that while the use of such technology was a good addition to current efforts in crime prevention, it should not be a stand-alone preventive system.

“For example, CCTV by itself won’t deter snatch thieves but a combination of CCTV with crime prevention and police presence would have a more deterrent effect by reducing crime opportunities and chances of criminals getting away with their crimes,” she said.

However, she said biometric facial recognition marking must first be compiled for the system’s database to be effective.

She said periodic updates to the database must also be done as a person’s age or those involved in accidents, would result in changes to their original facial structure.

“Another related issue are people who are not in the database, for example people who are without ICs, passports, or other forms of iden­tification and stateless children,” she added.

She cautioned that people who share common features, either due to family ties or ethnic similarities, could be wrongly identified.

Her colleague Dr P. Sundramoorthy also cautioned that facial recognition technology was not foolproof and police should use discretion when approaching suspected individuals on the street.

The USM criminologist said technology was useful but it could also mislead.

“Police must exercise caution and use their discretion to approach the suspected individuals to ensure they are not embarrassed by the action,” he said.