The Commons: A Blind Spot For Facial Recognition And Rural Surveillance
Clive Bailye
The Crime and Policing Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons is causing consternation for the government as MP’s question the use of facial recognition cameras and increased powers available to the state regarding monitoring of it’s citizens.
There has been an increased usage of facial recognition technology by police forces across the UK in order to catch criminals. Trials of facial recognition cameras by the Metropolitan Police in London and South Wales Police in Cardiff have been met with backlash by activists against surveillance in the UK.
Big Brother Watch, a group dedicated to campaigning for personal freedoms, said: “This (facial recognition cameras) dangerously authoritarian surveillance is a threat to our privacy and freedoms – it has no place on the streets of Britain.”
Interim director of the group, Rebecca Vincent, added: “It’s time to stop this steady slide into a dystopian nightmare, and halt all use of LFR (Live facial recognition) technology across the UK until legislative safeguards are introduced”.
In 2020, the Court of Appeal found that the use of facial recognition technology by South Wales Police breaches privacy rights, data protection laws and equality rights but it is still being rolled out across the UK. Questions are frequently asked to the government during the second reading of the bill by backbench MP’s, concerned about the fact that facial recognition has been shown to be discriminatory and enforce already entrenched police bias.
Dame Diana Johnson, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire of the United Kingdom, said “Live facial recognition is a valuable policing tool that helps to keep people safe. Its use is already governed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection laws. I do, however, recognise the need to assess whether a bespoke legislation framework is needed, and we will set out our plans on this later in the year.”
A study conducted by Clarion UK, a UK based security firm estimated that London itself was home to over 900,000 CCTV cameras in 2022, estimated at around one camera for every ten people.
But there is an increasing usage of surveillance in more rural areas as police forces and farmers attempt to stop the growing epidemic of farm equipment theft. According to the National Farmers Union (NFU) in 2024 was an estimated £44.1 million. Despite this being down by 16.5% compared to 2023, farmers are still reeling in an industry where margins are tight. The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, introduced in 2023, aimed to provide tighter restrictions on the buying and selling of farm equipment, however legislation doesn’t seem to have made a difference to the personal experience of farmers.
Clive Bailye is a third-generation farmer from Litchfield in Staffordshire. He set up The Farming Forum in 2012, an online forum which farmers use to discuss all things farming. When questioned if he had experienced theft himself, he pointed out a remark made by a fellow farmer that “you might be better off asking who hasn’t had stuff stolen from a farm.”
He said: “Rural crime is a growing issue and isn’t overly policed. Quadbikes and the UTV products which are used so much on farms are the big targets. Last summer we had a John Deere Gator stolen from literally in front of our eyes.”
The man using the gator was just 200 meters away when he saw the vehicle stolen and although the police were contacted and although were helpful in the incident according to Bailye, they were not able to recover the vehicle.
Bailye installed automated gates on his farm after experiencing diesel theft. He has also struggled with illegal dumpers on his land and has had tools stolen from his workshop. Security is a costly burden for farmers, not only in replacing stolen equipment, but also in lost time that could otherwise be spent working in the fields during narrow weather windows.
“It’s an industry with a high suicide rate and sometimes when you feel like you’re under attack the whole time, it doesn’t take a lot to push you over the edge.”
Bailye acknowledged potential criticisms of increased surveillance in rural areas but believed that, with proper controls in place and adherence to the law, there should be no reason for concern. A new CCTV camera has been placed in a pull-off next to TWB farms in order to try to prevent further fly tipping and damage to Bailye’s property.
He said: “It’s easy to criticise the police but they do the best they can with what they’ve got so some more technology has got to be the solution really, and it is something we have to live with if we want to be safe.”
An increasing sentiment that exists among farmers is that they must take security into their own hands and invest in crime prevention. Crime prevention officers have visited farms and advised on how best to prevent rural crime.
Private investigator firm, Titan Investigations, routinely operates CROP (Covert Rural Observation Post) surveillance. Listed on their website as potential reasons for using CROP surveillance are theft of plant equipment, fuel theft, and fly tipping. These are issues which routinely affect farmers.
Director of Titan Investigation, Simon Henson, is an ex-counterterrorism police officer in Nottinghamshire. Henson spoke about what one was able to do in a rural setting compared to an urban setting. He said: “A CROPs officer is effectively doing static observations. They have got a lot more capabilities available to them compared to an urban area. You do have the option of flying drones over etc. for intelligence purposes so you have a lot more capability.”
Henson mentioned that they are no longer required to register with PfCO now for a commercial license as long as the drone is under 250 grams. The drones Henson’s company operate with are just within the threshold for commercial use, they are 249 grams.
When Henson was asked if they ever received complaints regarding drone usage, he said: “As long as they’re being used properly, they’ll be at a high enough altitude so that they can’t be heard and so no one will know they’re there. We can potentially be 200 meters up so you’re not going to be hearing anything whatsoever down below and we’re still getting facial imagery.”
Worries regarding rural surveillance are less talked about than urban areas due to the fact there is a lack of awareness surrounding rural surveillance and also fewer people who are affected. However, the industry is expanding and there is more and more grey area over where they are allowed to operate and what the remits are.
Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, speaking to a Home Affairs committee acknowledged the benefit that surveillance and facial recognition can have for police forces across the country but is also aware of the legal grey area surrounding the issue. Cooper said: “There is no clear overarching governance framework for it and that means that some police forces are not really clear about the legal basis and when and where they can use it. We have been working at pace.”
The Crime and Policing Bill hopes to address conflicting reports and clarify in legislation just how far private security firms and the police are able to go in the field of surveillance as more modern technology becomes available.