Current Most Read

Facebook Marketplace: The Pros and Cons for Buyers and Sellers

How to prepare for concert ticket presales and sales on Ticketmaster

Journalism on the Frontline: The Life and Death of Victoria Roshchyna

Should we be more resilient to extreme heat?

Gregory Devine
May 20, 2024
3 min read

As top temperatures in the UK have now reached 40 Celsius, some people are calling for new legislation regarding working in extreme heat.

Water bottle with a temp gauge on the side.

‘I like it hot, but I don’t like it this hot’ will be a phrase we will no doubt hear multiple times this summer, with the ridiculous temperatures the UK is now forced to deal with—but at what point does the weather become too much? Business owners were asking themselves that question as they made the decision on whether they and their teams should work at home, or not, during last week’s record-breaking heatwave.

No doubt some people will say it’s only hot weather, but I’m inclined to disagree with this. This isn’t just hot weather; we are actually living through a national emergency. The temperature doesn’t just directly affect us as people— hot weather threatens the infrastructure that helps us get to work. Train tracks can buckle due to the heat, which will affect people’s commute. Last week, crews were on standby to lay sand down in some parts of the country where there were concerns the road could melt away.

On Tuesday 19 July 2022 most of the east coast mainline was closed, which meant there were no trains from York to London. Many people, therefore, couldn’t get to work on Tuesday or attend meetings and events in London. Government guidance is desperately needed. There needs to be a framework, guidelines…something for business owners, and even headteachers, to refer to, so that they can effectively make a decision on whether it’s safe for employees or students to come into work/school. Such legislation on extreme temperatures, at the rate we’re going, will be something used quite often, as the UK will see more 40+ Celsius temperatures, due to climate change.

At what point should employees not come into work? At what point is it not safe to send a child into school? There is no definitive answer for this nor is there, currently, any real guidance to help.

Do we all need to suck it up and just get on with it? Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister, would agree with this. He said, ‘We ought to enjoy the sunshine, and actually, we ought to be resilient enough through some of the pressures it will place.’ Seems somewhat irresponsible of him to say that when you consider the national warnings that were given out. Some business owners are suggesting it’s better for employees to come into the workplace, because they’re more likely to be air-conditioned. I would agree with this if most people could actually get to work, but many won’t, due to public transport being cancelled—thanks to buckled train lines and melting roads.

I recently spoke about how the UK simply isn’t built for temperatures this hot, with the humidity and the fact our infrastructure is built to be more resilient against colder weather. We don’t have the means to effectively deal with extreme heat. 40+ Celsius is currently rare, but temperatures of 30+ Celsius are now an annual occurrence. Despite this, our buildings are still designed to be great at keeping warmth in, not keeping cool, which only makes matters worse during a heatwave. This isn’t a complaint, more a fact of life. We can’t get rid of the insulation, as we also experience cold winters.

We need appropriate legislation and guidance to refer to—so that business owners can make an effective decision that’s best for the needs of their company in a heatwave. In my opinion, it should be a case of ‘if you can get to work in a safe manner that isn’t putting anyone at risk’ then you should do so. The point on offices being airconditioned is a good one; it would certainly be more comfortable being at work than at home during periods of extreme heat. That being said, if you can’t get to work because trains are cancelled, for example, then it should also be acceptable to work from home.

Watching the Watchers: Is Live Facial Recognition Fit for Purpose?

All Articles

8 May 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

In an age of rapid technological advancement, surveillance is no longer a passive act. Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology has moved from science fiction into the heart of modern policing and commercial security systems. Able to scan faces in real time and match them to watchlists within seconds, it promises efficiency, safety, and even crime prevention. But with these promises come serious questions about legality, accuracy, ethics, and trust.

Futuristic officer with glowing green eyes and circuit-patterned uniform in a neon-lit corridor, exuding a cool, technological vibe.

As this technology continues to spread across public streets and private retail spaces alike, we must ask: is LFR ready for widespread use, or is it running ahead of the safeguards designed to protect our rights?

What is Live Facial Recognition?

Live Facial Recognition (LFR) is a biometric surveillance tool that uses real-time video feeds to detect and identify faces. Unlike static facial recognition, which analyses images after an event has occurred, LFR operates live. Cameras scan crowds, extract facial features, and compare them to a database of preloaded images. If the system detects a potential match, it alerts a human operator to intervene or investigate.

LFR is being trialled and used by several police forces in the UK, including the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police. Retailers, stadiums, and event organisers are also deploying the technology in an attempt to identify shoplifters or detect banned individuals before trouble starts.

A woman's face on a monitor with blue facial recognition lines, surrounded by software interface text, creates a tech-focused atmosphere.

How Does It Work? A Closer Look

LFR involves several distinct technical steps. At its core, it is powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms trained on vast datasets of facial images. The process typically unfolds as follows:

Face Detection

First, the system identifies a face within a video frame. This step uses computer vision models to detect facial structures such as the eyes, nose, and jawline. This is not identification yet; it is simply recognising that a face is present.

Alignment and Normalisation

Once detected, the system adjusts the face to account for differences in head tilt, lighting, or distance. This is known as normalisation. The aim is to ensure that all faces are processed in a similar format so that they can be compared reliably.

Feature Extraction

The system then uses a deep learning model, often a convolutional neural network, to extract features from the face. These are translated into a biometric template, a mathematical vector that represents the unique aspects of that person’s face.

Matching

This template is then compared against a watchlist. The system calculates a similarity score between the live face and each entry in the database. If the score passes a predefined threshold, the system flags it as a match. A human operator is usually involved at this stage to confirm or reject the result.

This entire process happens in seconds, enabling real-time surveillance across public or private spaces.

The Case For LFR

Proponents argue that LFR is a valuable tool for modern policing. It can identify wanted criminals, locate missing persons, and even prevent terrorist acts before they happen. In retail settings, it promises to reduce shoplifting and protect staff from repeat offenders. Unlike traditional methods, it allows for rapid identification without the need for physical interaction or delays.

The technology also allows for more efficient use of resources. Officers can be directed to individuals flagged by the system, rather than relying solely on observation or tip-offs. In theory, this reduces the burden on police and enhances public safety.

The Case Against LFR

Despite its promise, LFR is far from perfect. One of the main concerns is accuracy. Studies have shown that LFR systems are more likely to produce false positives for people with darker skin tones and for women. These errors are not trivial. A mistaken identity can result in an innocent person being stopped, searched, or even arrested.

There is also the issue of bias in training data. If an algorithm has been trained primarily on certain demographics, it will perform less effectively on others. In real-world conditions, such as low lighting or crowd movement, these problems can become even more pronounced.

Beyond technical flaws, legal and ethical questions loom large. In the United Kingdom, there is currently no specific law governing the use of LFR. Its deployment relies on a complex mesh of data protection laws, human rights principles, and operational guidance. Critics argue that this legal uncertainty leaves too much room for misuse.

A 2020 Court of Appeal ruling found South Wales Police’s use of LFR to be unlawful, citing insufficient safeguards, inadequate impact assessments, and the risk of discriminatory practices. The ruling did not ban the technology outright but signalled that current uses are walking a legal tightrope.

Potential Misuse and the Chilling Effect

One of the most troubling aspects of LFR is its capacity for mass surveillance. By scanning every face in a crowd, it treats everyone as a potential suspect. This blanket approach has been described as disproportionate and invasive by privacy groups such as Big Brother Watch and Liberty.

There is also the risk of function creep. A system introduced to identify serious offenders could, over time, be expanded to monitor protests, track political activists, or even control access to public spaces based on social or behavioural metrics.

Furthermore, the use of LFR by private companies raises concerns about data ownership and accountability. Retailers may share watchlists across multiple sites or even with law enforcement, all without the consent or knowledge of the individuals being scanned. This could lead to people being unfairly banned, blacklisted, or targeted, based on secretive and unchallengeable criteria.

Is It Fit for Purpose?

At present, the evidence suggests that Live Facial Recognition technology is not ready for widespread deployment. While it offers considerable potential, its use is outpacing the development of ethical, legal, and technical safeguards. In its current state, LFR is more likely to erode public trust than to enhance security.

Without robust legislation, transparent oversight, and significant improvements in accuracy and fairness, LFR risks doing more harm than good. Surveillance should not come at the cost of civil liberties or human dignity. As with all powerful technologies, its benefits must be balanced against the risks, and right now, that balance appears off.

LFR is a powerful tool with a fragile foundation. Its strengths lie in speed and scale, but its weaknesses—bias, error, and lack of transparency—cast a long shadow. Until these flaws are addressed, caution must guide its use.

In the race to embrace smart surveillance, we must not forget the human rights and democratic values that underpin our society. Watching the watchers may be just as important as watching the streets.

Images provided by Leonardo AI