Commissioner welcomes publication of report into emerging technologies in Policing
The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Dr Brian Plastow has today welcomed the publication of the ETIAG report which engages with contemporary debates around the panoply of technologies that will inevitably emerge in policing in Scotland in the years to come. The report confirms that Scotland is in a strong position and encourages a more consultative approach to the adoption of new technologies in accordance with the principles of the model of policing by consent in Scotland.
Commenting on the report, the Commissioner has said I am grateful to the Chair Professor Aston for leading this body of work and for the acknowledgement of the contributions to the advisory group from my Operations Manager Diego Quiroz. I also welcome the acknowledgement that on biometric data, our Code of Practice in Scotland is a forerunner.
The report contains 18 recommendations, one of which (recommendation No 12) has a reference to the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. As an Independent Officeholder appointed by the Parliament, I may not of course be directed, but as the wording reflects a legal duty already placed on me by virtue of section 2 (3) (a) of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Act 2020, I gladly accept it within the spirit of which it is offered.
The one area within the report where I would urge caution from Minister’s is that part of recommendation No 12 which advocates that some technologies should be categorically prohibited from police use by Scottish Government. Whilst accepting of course that there have been instances of UK government prohibiting certain ‘technology companies’ from certain locations on the grounds of UK national security, that is quite a different thing from banning a ‘technology’. As I have previously said in evidence to the Scottish Parliament, technology itself is neither good nor bad, but rather it’s about how people choose to use it. This recommendation may also be interpreted as advocating political interference in policing without properly recognising the constitutional position of the Chief Constable in terms of her/his operational independence. It also raises the sinister prospect of politicians denying the Chief Constable the tools she/he may determine are necessary in future, whilst simultaneously surrendering competitive advantage to terrorists and criminals.
A very similar note of caution has recently been made to UK Ministers by the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera for England and Wales:
‘Denying the police access to technology not only encroaches on their operational primacy, it also dilutes their accountability because it involves someone, or something else, assuming responsibility for deciding not to use this or that technology, and for that being the correct decision in every given operational setting. As technological capability increases – for the police and criminal actors – anyone presuming that they are best placed to make such a difficult judgment call, and to accept responsibility if, or when, they are wrong, will need to be very sure of their ground’
(Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material Annual Report January 2021 – March 2022, Page 9)
This single reservation aside, I welcome the report and congratulate the Chair and all those who contributed