My Take | ‘Smart policing’ makes sense but so does the need for safeguards
As Hong Kong steps up its use of surveillance cameras and introduces facial-recognition technology, it must ensure the right balance is struck
Hong Kong police sparked outrage, more than 20 years ago, when they proposed a radical new approach to fighting crime.
A pilot scheme to install closed-circuit television cameras in entertainment hotspot Lan Kwai Fong was shelved in 2002, after a backlash from the public and cross-party opposition from lawmakers. Since then, the use of cameras in various forms has been enthusiastically embraced by law enforcement agencies around the world, helping to trace and deter criminals.
Hong Kong is no exception, but it has been slow to adopt the latest technology. Now, it is catching up. Thousands of surveillance cameras are being deployed and the use of facial-recognition technology to identify suspects could begin this year.
As the city embarks on a rapid transition to “smart policing” it should be aware that concerns about privacy intrusions remain and sufficient safeguards are needed.
The Metropolitan Police in London have been using live facial-recognition technology for five years. But the force is now facing a landmark legal challenge from a man it wrongly identified as a criminal. Last week, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission branded the police policy incompatible with the rights to privacy, free expression and assembly.
Hong Kong began installing “SmartView” surveillance cameras in April last year. There are now more than 3,000 in place. More than 15,000 cameras will be introduced between 2025 and 2027 and 200 police cars are also to be equipped.
The benefits of the technology are clear and widely recognised. Surveillance footage had been used to detect 351 cases and arrest 628 people by the end of June. These included 157 theft cases, 37 burglaries, 29 woundings and five homicides.