Tag Archives: racism

Facial recognition systems: ready for prime time?

Posted on by

by Scott Faulds

Across the UK, it is estimated that there are 1.85 million CCTV cameras, approximately one camera for every 36 people.  From shopping centres to railway stations, CCTV cameras have become a normal part of modern life and modern policing, with research from the College of Policing indicating that CCTV modestly reduces overall crime. Currently, most of the cameras utilised within the CCTV system are passive; they act as a deterrent or provide evidence of an individual’s past location or of a crime committed.

However, advances in artificial intelligence have allowed for the development of facial recognition systems which could enable CCTV cameras to proactively identify suspects or active crime in real-time. Currently, the use of facial recognition systems in limited pilots has received a mixed reaction, with the Metropolitan Police arguing that it is their duty to use new technologies to keep people safe. But privacy campaigners argue that the technology possesses a serious threat to civil liberties and are concerned that facial recognition systems contain gender and racial bias.

How does it work?

Facial recognition systems operate in a similar way to how humans recognise faces, through identifying familiar facial characteristics, but on a much larger and data driven way. Whilst there are a variety of different types of facial recognition system, the basic steps are as follows:

An image of a face is captured either within a photograph, video or live footage. The face can be within a crowd and does not necessarily have to be directly facing a camera.

Facial recognition software biometrically scans the face and converts unique facial characteristics (distance between your eyes, distance from forehead to chin etc) into a mathematical formula known as a facial signature.

The facial signature can then be compared to faces stored within a database (such as a police watchlist) or faces previously flagged by the system.

The system then determines if it believes it has identified a match; in most systems the level of confidence required before the system flags a match can be altered.

Facial recognition and the police

Over the past twelve months, the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have both operated pilots of facial recognition systems, designed to identify individuals wanted for serious and violent offences. These pilots involved the placement of facial recognition cameras in central areas, such as Westfield Shopping Centre, where large crowds’ faces were scanned and compared to a police watch-list. If the system flags a match, police officers would then ask the potential match to confirm their identify and if the match was correct, they would be detained. Police forces have argued that the public broadly support the deployment of facial recognition and believe that the right balance has been found between keeping the public safe and protecting individual privacy.

The impact of the deployment of facial recognition by the police has been compared by some to the introduction of fingerprint identification. However, it is difficult to determine how successful these pilots have been, as there has been a discrepancy regarding the reporting of the accuracy of these facial recognition systems. According to the Metropolitan Police, 70% of wanted suspects would be identified walking past facial recognition cameras, whilst only one in 1,000 people would generate a false alert, an error rate of 0.1%.  Conversely, independent analysis commissioned by the Metropolitan Police, has found that only eight out of 42 matches were verified as correct, an error rate of 81%.

The massive discrepancy in error rates can be explained by the way in which you asses the accuracy of a facial recognition system. The Metropolitan Police measure accuracy by comparing successful and unsuccessful matches with the total number of faces scanned by the facial recognition system. Independent researchers, on the other hand, asses the accuracy of the flags generated by the facial recognition system. Therefore, it is unclear as to how accurate facial recognition truly is, nevertheless, the Metropolitan Police have now begun to use live facial recognition cameras operationally.

Privacy and bias

Civil liberties groups, such as Liberty and Big Brother Watch, have a raised a variety of concerns regarding the police’s use of facial recognition. These groups argue that the deployment of facial recognition systems presents a clear threat to individual privacy and privacy as a social norm. Although facial recognition systems used by the police are designed to flag those on watch-lists, every single person that comes into the range of a camera will automatically have their face biometrically scanned. In particular, privacy groups have raised concerns about the use of facial recognition systems during political protests, arguing that their use may constitute a threat to the right to freedom of expression and may even represent a breach of human rights law. 

Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding racial and gender bias that have been found to be prevalent in facial recognition systems across the world. A recent evaluative study conducted by the US Government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology on 189 facial recognition algorithms has found that most algorithms exhibit “demographic differentials”. This means that a facial recognition system’s ability to match two images of the same person varies depending on demographic group. This study found that facial recognition systems were less effective at identifying BAME and female faces, this means that these groups are statistically more likely to be falsely flagged and potentially questioned by the police.

Final thoughts

From DNA to fingerprint identification, the police are constantly looking for new and innovative ways to help keep the public safe. In theory, the use of facial recognition is no different, the police argue that the ability to quickly identify a person of interest will make the public safer. However, unlike previous advancements, the effectiveness of facial recognition is largely unproven.

Civil liberties groups are increasingly concerned that facial recognition systems may infringe on the right to privacy and worry that their use will turn the public into walking biometric ID cards. Furthermore, research has indicated that the vast majority of facial recognition systems feature racial and gender bias, this could lead to women and BAME individuals experiencing repeated contact with the police due to false matches.

In summary, facial recognition systems provide the police with a new tool to help keep the public safe. However, in order to be effective and gain the trust of the public, it will be vital for the police to set out the safeguards put in place to prevent privacy violations and the steps taken to ensure that the systems do not feature racial and gender bias.  

Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our Research Officers this week.

If you enjoyed this article you may also like to read:

Icons made by monkik from www.flaticon.com

Diversity and inclusion in the workplace: more than just demographics

Posted on by

 

The experts are in agreement: having a diverse workforce can drive innovation, improve performance and attract top talent.  As such, diversity and inclusion (D&I) is a ‘hot topic’, with many top organisations identifying it as a key element of their corporate strategy.

But what does effective D&I look like in practice?  In this blog, we will look at how to implement effective D&I initiatives in the workplace.

 

Progress still needed

While organisational diversity has improved in recent years, there is still a long way to go.

Action has been most visible in regards to gender.  However, although female employment rates have increased, male and female experiences of progression within the workplace are still vastly different.  For example, in 2018, FTSE 100 CEOs were still more likely to be called Dave or Steve than to be female.

Progress has been less tangible in regards to race and ethnicity.  A recent study by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) found that while 75% of FTSE 100 companies set progression targets for gender, only 21% did the same for BAME. Indeed, only 6% of top management jobs are held by Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) leaders, whereas BAME groups make up 12% of the working population.

There is a similar lack of representation among disabled and LGBT employees.  This only increases when considering intersectionality – that is, employees who identify with more than one protected status.

 

Diversity and inclusion are separate concepts

Many organisational diversity initiatives have proved unsuccessful.  Where have they gone wrong?

Firstly, being a truly inclusive organisation is about more than just hiring a diverse workforce.  Diversity alone does not guarantee that every employee will have the same experience within the organisation.

A first step towards implementing an effective D&I strategy is to understand that diversity and inclusion are related, but distinct, concepts.

As the recent CIPD report on ‘Building inclusive workplaces’ explains:

  • Diversity refers to the demographic differences of a group. It usually references protected characteristics in UK law: age, disability, gender, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
  • Inclusion, on the other hand, is often defined as the extent to which everyone at work, regardless of their background, identity or circumstance, feels valued, accepted and supported to succeed at work.

Thus, effective organisational D&I is more than just demographics.  Put simply ‘Diversity is the mix. Inclusion is making the mix work’.

 

Copy and paste mistakes

Another key mistake that many organisations make is ‘copying and pasting’ initiatives from another organisation into their own situation.

Just because a D&I initiative has been successful elsewhere does not mean that it will be effective in a different organisational context.  It is essential that D&I initiatives are tailored to suit individual organisational contexts.  Much will depend on the unique structural and individual barriers to inclusion that are faced in an organisation.

 

Addressing the barriers

Thus, it is crucial that organisations identify and tackle these specific barriers to inclusion.

Structural barriers may include a lack of flexible working opportunities, or a lack of BAME representation on recruitment selection panels or within senior management and HR.

Individual barriers may include prejudice and bias (both conscious and unconscious).  For example, the TUC Racism at Work survey found that 65% of BAME workers have suffered harassment at work within the last five years, while 49% had been treated unfairly.  Similarly, an NIESR study found that 23% of LGBT employees had experienced a negative or mixed reaction from others in the workplace due to being LGBT or being thought to be LGBT.

 

Tackling prejudice and bias

Addressing employees’ unconscious bias is one way to help tackle this.  Unconscious bias training involves teaching people about the psychological processes behind prejudice and techniques that can be used to reduce it. Research has found that unconscious bias training can be effective in increasing people’s awareness and knowledge of diversity issues.

However, evidence of its impact on attitudes and behaviours is less conclusive, so it is not a panacea.

 

Making the mix work

So what else can organisations do to help foster inclusion?

Research has found that there are several key aspects that contribute to individual feelings of inclusion.  In particular, individuals must feel valued for their uniqueness, and they must feel able to  be their authentic selves at work, regardless of any differences between them and other team members. This, in turn, leads to a sense of belonging, without the need to conform to ‘group norms’.

Individual feelings of inclusion are influenced both by the behaviours of others at work, as well as informal and formal organisational practices.

Some good practice examples of organisational inclusion include:

  • Fair policies and practices
  • Ensuring the availability of specific practices, such as flexible working, that can support inclusion
  • Involving employees in decision making processes and networks
  • Actively taking feedback on board
  • Ensuring that leaders are role models for inclusion
  • Genuinely valuing individual difference, not just hiring for representation

Other practices that may help promote inclusive working environments include mentorship, sponsorship and the creation of inclusive employee networks.

 

Learning from good practice

The good news is that an increasing number of organisations are working towards becoming truly diverse and inclusive.  Awards and certifications such as Business in the Community’s Race Equality Award, EDGE certification for gender equality, and Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index for LGBT inclusion, all highlight the positive work that is being done.

For example, Pinsent Masons – currently the number 1 employer in the Workplace Equality Index – have worked to remove barriers to employment for trans individuals, provided support for LGBT women to overcome the ‘double glazed glass ceiling’ and facilitated the creation of an LGBT and allies employee network.

 

Inclusion leads to better, fairer workplaces 

Successful D&I cannot be measured by demographics – it is not enough to just have the right numbers on paper.  Every employee must feel valued as an individual and have equal access to opportunities.  In order to achieve this, organisations must look at their own contexts and develop initiatives that tackle the individual and structural barriers to inclusion that have been identified.  Listening to feedback from employees, and genuinely valuing and acting upon their input, is essential.

Becoming more inclusive is not only a moral obligation, it also has profound business implications – a recent study found that the potential benefit to the UK economy from full representation of BAME individuals across the labour market through improved participation and progression is estimated to be £24 billion per annum.  Thus, inclusive organisations are not only better and fairer places to work, but can also achieve better performance and innovation.

Follow us on Twitter to see what topics are interesting our research team.

Equal to the task? Addressing racial inequality in public services

Posted on by

huddleCLR

Throughout October, a series of events to promote diversity and equality will take place as part of Black History Month. Although there are many achievements to celebrate, it is an unfortunate fact that many people in the UK today still experience disadvantage due to the colour of their skin.

Over the summer, reports by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), found that racial inequality in the UK was ‘worryingly high’.

In its biggest ever review of race inequality in the UK, the EHRC concluded that:

“while for certain people life has become fairer over the past five years, for others progress has stalled and for some– in particular young Black people – life on many fronts has got worse.”

Audit of racial disparities announced

The government responded quickly by announcing an audit of racial disparities in public services. It promises to ‘shine a light on injustices as never before’.

From summer 2017, Whitehall departments will be required to identify and publish information annually on outcomes for people of different backgrounds in areas such as health, education, childcare, welfare, employment, skills and criminal justice.

As well as enabling the public to check how their race affects the way they are treated by public services, the data is also intended to help force services to improve.

The audit is being called ‘unprecedented’ – and it certainly is – up until now, public services in the UK have not systematically gathered data for the purposes of racial comparison. Indeed, according to the FT, very few countries, if any at all, currently produce racial impact audits.

‘Worryingly high’ levels of racial inequality

The audit will have its work cut out.  The review by the EHRC found that, compared to their White counterparts, people from ethnic minorities were more likely to be:

  • unemployed
  • on low wages and/or in insecure employment
  • excluded from school
  • less qualified
  • living in poverty
  • living in substandard and/or overcrowded accommodation
  • experiencing mental and physical health problems
  • in the criminal justice system
  • stopped and searched by police
  • a victim of hate crime
  • a victim of homicide

Institutional racism

Similarly, the CERD findings into how well the UK is meeting its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) raised serious concerns about the level of institutional racism in UK public services. Omar Khan, of the Runnymede Trust, suggested that the findings would ‘embarrass the UK on the world stage’.

Longstanding inequalities in access to services, the quality of care received and patients’ health outcomes were criticised, as was the over-representation of persons belonging to ethnic minorities in psychiatric institutions.

The committee echoed the EHRC’s concerns regarding higher unemployment rates and the concentration of persons belonging to ethnic minorities in insecure and low-paid work.  They also criticised the use of discriminatory recruitment practices by employers.

In education, there were concerns regarding reports of racist bullying and harassment in schools, and the lack of balanced teaching about the history of the British Empire and colonialism, particularly with regard to slavery.

The committee also concluded that there had been an outbreak of xenophobia and discrimination against ethnic minorities, particularly since the EU referendum campaign.  Indeed, the rise in post-Brexit racial tensions has been widely acknowledged.

Equal to the task?

Although the audit has been welcomed by many, including the EHRC, others have raised concern about the extent to which it will tackle the root of the problem.  Danny Dorling, of Oxford University, remains sceptical, stating that “within two or three years every single one of these audits is forgotten”.

Some have noted that in order to be effective, the audit will also have to capture outcomes for migrant families, and for poorer White people, who also suffer from discrimination and disadvantage.  Others, including Labour’s Angela Rayner, shadow equalities minister, have noted that there is a ‘huge gap’ in the review as it would not include the private sector.

The EHRC have called upon the government to create “a comprehensive, coordinated and long-term strategy to achieve race equality, with stretching new targets to improve opportunities and deliver clear and measurable outcomes.”

Certainly, the data produced by the racial equality audit may well provide some basis for the establishment of such targets.

So while this October there is cause for celebrating the progress made so far, the findings of the EHRC and the CERD underline just how entrenched and far-reaching race inequality remains.  As the EHRC states:

“We must tackle this with the utmost urgency if we are to heal the divisions in our society and prevent an escalation of tensions between our communities.”

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

 

Hate crime in 2016 – pre and post Brexit

Posted on by

by Stacey Dingwall

Alongside economic warnings and forecasts, a suggested increase in hate crime has been the social issue dominating headlines in the fallout from the vote to leave the EU in June. In the fortnight following the vote, the British Transport Police recorded 119 allegations of racist abuse and attacks on trains and at stations, which represented a 57% increase on the number of incidents recorded in the previous two weeks, and an 87% increase on the same period in 2015. Overall, according to figures released by the National Police Chiefs Council, more than 6,000 hate crimes were reported in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the month from 16 June. This is equivalent to more than 200 per day, and 20% more than the same period last year. In response, the new Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced a review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) of how police forces in England and Wales respond to incidences of hate crime.

Brexit – the catalyst?

The decision to ‘Brexit’ has undoubtedly highlighted divisions in the country that some fear may never be healed. While it obviously cannot be said that only those with the inclination to commit a hate crime voted to leave, there are those who argue that the result has only served to ‘legitimise’ the views of those that do hold xenophobic views.

British politicians have been criticised by a UN committee on racial discrimination for their role in fuelling hate crime during and after the referendum campaign. The committee said that it was “deeply concerned” about the “divisive, anti-immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric” employed by some parties, with the media also coming in for criticism of its negative portrayal of minorities, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. While it’s easy to think of examples of this type of rhetoric from Leave campaigners (e.g. Nigel Farage’s ‘breaking point’ poster that was reported to police for inciting racial hatred), it’s important to consider that prominent Remain figures – including David Cameron, who once described migrants trying to reach Britain as a “swarm” – may also be partially to blame for the situation. The new government’s failure to guarantee the future of EU nationals currently resident in the UK is creating further unease.

Hate crime in UK

Of course, Brexit is not wholly responsible for the increase in hate crimes recorded. Nor are migrants the only group to be victims of crime, although racial hatred accounts for 82% of hate crime recorded by police. This is followed by religiously motivated crime, homophobic incidents, transgender hate crime, and disability hate crime. While misogyny is not currently included in the official definition of hate crime, Nottinghamshire Police recently announced that they would begin to record such acts, including wolf whistling, as hate crimes. The police say this is due to the “unacceptable” experiences of women on a daily basis, and has the aim of helping more victims to have the courage to report incidents. The force also recently treated an attack against a teenager who identifies as a goth as a hate crime, following Greater Manchester Police’s decision to treat these attacks as such in 2013.

Underreporting of hate crime makes it extremely difficult to gain a picture of the true extent of the problem in the UK. The UK government’s recently published plan for tackling hate crime notes the discrepancy between the numbers of crimes reported to the police and those recorded by the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), which means that hate crimes are significantly underreported. The CSEW estimates that there were 222,000 hate crimes on average each year from 2012/13 to 2014/15, which represents a decrease of 56,000 since the previous period covered by the survey. At the same time, the number of hate crimes recorded by the police increased from 44,471 in 2013/14 to 52,528 in 2014/15, which the government attributes to better practice from the police and victims becoming more confident in coming forward. Nevertheless, the CSEW indicates that victims of hate crime are less satisfied by the response they receive from criminal justice agencies when compared with other forms of crime. Additionally, incidences of online hate crime are not covered by either sets of figures meaning that due to the dominance of social media, neither are likely to be truly indicative of what’s really going on.

Moving on from Brexit

In recognition of the need to record online hate crime, the Metropolitan Police announced earlier this month that it has received funding from the Mayor of London and the Home Office to set up a specialist team dedicated to identifying online abuse and supporting victims. The two-year pilot has been set up following claims by community groups that the present police response to a problem they view as being of increasing concern has thus far has been inconsistent.

Encouraging responses to hate crime at the community level can in fact be seen across the country. Post Brexit, EU nationals have seen demonstrations of support in the form of safety pins and messages of solidarity both on and offline. It can only be hoped that those criticised for exacerbating tensions within and between communities will start to follow these examples as we continue on in deeply uncertain times.

If you enjoyed reading this post, you might like our previous post on the impact of Brexit on the Digital Economy Bill.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

 

Stop and search powers targeting minorities

Posted on by

British policeman

by Donna Gardiner

The public reaction to the outcome of the inquest into the shooting of Mark Duggan has highlighted the need for the police to improve their relationship with black and minority ethnic (BAME) communities.

One area of long running contention is the use of ‘stop and search’ powers by police – where police can stop and search people in public places for drugs, weapons, stolen goods or other potentially criminal items under certain circumstances. Continue reading →