Davis calls on businesses to join programme using CCTVS with facial recognition technology

Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis. Photo: Dante Carrer

Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis. Photo: Dante Carrer


Tribune News Editor


PRIME Minister Philip “Brave” Davis wants businesses to call the Ministry of National Security and join a programme involving use of facial recognition CCTVs.

Mr Davis said police have been testing and evaluating the technology for two years, calling it an extraordinary success.

“This technology can identify faces and licence plate numbers and detect guns,” he said.

“Many businesses, large and small, have agreed to be part of this major CCTV expansion. If you aren’t on-boarded already, I urge you to call the national security. Every camera we add will make a difference in our ability to prevent and detect crime and apprehend criminals.”

Facial technology CCTV use has been controversial.

In 2019, the National Institute of Standards and Technology reported that facial recognition CCTV systems falsely identified African-American and Asian faces 10 to 100 times more than Caucasian faces, according to the New York Times.

As part of that study, researchers accessed more than 18 million photos of about 8.5 million people from mug shots, visa applications and border-crossing databases in the United States.

Earlier this month, National Security Minister Wayne Munroe acknowledged that the technology might wrongly identify someone as a criminal, but said: “Being arrested on suspicion and being held up to 48 hours is part of the price we pay for living in a free, democratic, orderly society”.

Mr Davis’ call for businesses to join the programme mirrors the police’s call in November for people and businesses with security cameras to join a programme letting police monitor their video feeds to fight crime.

FUSUS would reportedly integrate various policing tools such as CCTV, ShotSpotter, body-worn cameras, electronic monitoring, and drones into a real-time platform. The technology is used in some American cities and is being eyed in other locations worldwide, though critics are concerned about how it could lead states with high surveillance rates.


ThisIsOurs 3 months, 3 weeks ago

"police have been testing and evaluating the technology for two years"

With the Commissioner saying within the last 2 months that they dont have the resources to stop traffic violations everywhere? I highly doubt theyve been testing for 2 years. Likely a highly nuanced definition of "evaluating"

I wouldnt sign up for it until the public gets some assurance on how privacy and individual rights would be protected and the swift remedy when theyre violated is given. It's clear to me that politicians make draconian rules because they're assured it wont apply to them. Did you see Mr Pintard protesting about one of his FNM leadership being taken in for questioning? Had the FNM been in power he too would be talking about being willing to give up liberties. One of the warnings during COVID was that govt would use the pandemic as an excuse to overreach into totalitarian control. The problem isnt that the police need to lockdown everything, the problem is theyve been doing nothing. It's been the Wild West out here. And the court record of that police mass shooting in Blair in addition to the sexually motivated assault of a woman simply walking home by an ASP with still no response from the Commissioner months later, the 4 month wait to simply bring charges of rape against a sitting MP among a long list of "apparent" abuses leaves very little confidence of police ability to self govern


rosiepi 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Given that the errors in this system (and I’d expect this gov’t would engage in another ‘expensive’ contract being sold by a local crook) and the bias shown by near every member of the RBPF to rapidly increase our already overburdened judiciary with wrongful death, arrest and internment suits. They cannot keep up litigating the ones they have now by members of the RBPF! Look at the deplorable evidence coming from the inquest in the death of those gang members killed years ago. The police said one thing but wrote an entirely different version of events in their reports written at the time. How are the gov’t solicitors be expected to defend this particular posse of giggling cowboys? If they will not take their appearances in court or the efforts of said solicitors what does that say about their policing? Nothing good, these officers would be better working security at a warehouse, an empty one without goods to steal in

And shouldn’t this country put a priority on being able to track those fitted w/monitors out on bail for murders first?


Sign in to comment