[ad_1]
Justice Minister Andrew Little says police failed to obtain the necessary authorization before trying the controversial facial recognition software.
Justice Minister Andrew Little says the software was clearly not endorsed by the top police hierarchy before police tested it.
Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King
It follows RNZ’s revelations that the police tested the program of the American company Clearview AI without consulting their own bosses or the Privacy Commissioner.
“I don’t know how it came to be that one person thought it was a good idea,” Little said.
“It was clearly not endorsed by the high-ranking police hierarchy, and it clearly did not receive the endorsement of the [Police] Minister or indeed the broader cabinet … that’s cause for concern. “
Clearview, which is used by hundreds of law enforcement agencies in the United States and around the world, is effectively a search database pulled from the Internet that can easily identify people once their images are uploaded .
New Zealand police first approached the company in January, and then a brief trial was held, according to documents RNZ obtained under the Official Information Act. Police say they have decided not to use the product at this time.
Clearview has generated controversy for its opaque structure and its database of images taken from social networking sites, a violation of its terms of service. It claims to have been used to solve crimes, from mailbox thefts to child sexual abuse, but it has not been independently reviewed.
Little said he had received assurances from the police that any further exploration of technology like Clearview would have “due ministerial or cabinet approval.”
He said he did not know what the trial was used for.
Police did not respond to any of RNZ’s questions today about their relationship with Clearview.
The company launched its product as a counter-terrorism solution, citing proven success abroad.
However, Waikato University law professor Al Gillespie said the software would not have helped the police in this area.
“The tools they have are already good for the job if they point in the right direction. You can see something like Christchurch [terror attack] and they were not pointed in the right direction. Given that additional surveillance technology, I’m not sure they would have stopped that. “
Gillespie said terrorists were often invisible until they acted, although limited surveillance in places like courts and airports could help.
Abdul Lateef Smith, a security contractor who has advised the Muslim community on security in the wake of the Christchurch attacks, said facial recognition technology could also be implemented in mosques.
However, he said it would only help if someone was already a person of interest.
Green Party police spokesman Golriz Ghahraman said terrorism had been used to justify the erosion of rights worldwide, and that New Zealand should not follow suit.
“This type of technology will have to be analyzed very solidly.”
