Professor Richard Buckland

So this is a very limited trial they've announced.

It's just in one van which will be marked saying, according to the images we've seen, that there's facial recognition running.

And how it works is they are looking for particular people in this case.

So they've got presumably a database somewhere of people

faces of people that fit a certain category and they're trying to see if any of those people walk past the van.

And the categories they've mentioned are people who are wanted for domestic violence, known sex offenders.

So pretty reprehensible people and the sort of people you'd really want the police to be able to catch.

And it would seem reasonable that they'd be out in public looking for these people.

As we understand it, they're obviously a bit coy about the details, but the images are scanned in real time.

If there's a match, then the recording is left showing those faces and the police are alerted in real time, presumably in the van.

And then the other faces that don't match anyone on this list are pixelated.

What do you make of that argument?

Yeah, I mean, it's the argument that we always hear with privacy-related things.

I'm sure the police will continue using the methods that they currently have, so there's in no sense is adding this into the mix less intrusive.

It's actually widening the range of surveillance powers they have.

The argument's not going to the heart of things for a number of reasons.

It is certainly the case that the police will use this to catch people that everyone agrees should be caught.

The problem isn't with the software doing its job.

The problem is what are the consequences to everyone else?

What's the consequence to a society of having cameras everywhere?