Police use of mobile fingerprinting technology for immigration enforcement

graphic of a silhouette of a person sitting behind bars head in their hand, a fingerprint graphic behind them and a red border.

The Racial Justice Network and Yorkshire Resists, in conjunction with Queen Mary University of London, released a new report written to draw attention to the national use of the Biometric Services Gateway (mobile fingerprinting) by police forces. The report discusses issues that arose from new data obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from the period of March 2019 to June 2020 to all police forces in the UK.

Mobile biometric devices are handheld fingerprint scanners that police officers can use to check, on the spot, a person’s identity by matching the image of the fingerprint taken against the IDENT1 criminal record database and the Home Office IABS database without taking the individual into custody. The scanners can be connected to any mobile phone or tablet that also runs the corresponding app which allows the biometric databases to be searched.

After listening to concerns coming from the communities we work with, and conducting a report on the local use of the devices, the Racial Justice Network and Yorkshire Resist sought to further understand how the devices were being used across the U.K. felt a report was needed to draw further attention to the unethical and targeted use of mobile fingerprint scanners. 

Our first report revealed the main concerns regarding the use of biometric fingerprinting device was the damage to relations between racially minoritised communities and police who were seen as carrying out Immigration Enforcement checks, as well as the dissuasion of reporting crimes by those with precarious immigration status, seeking asylum and visa holders. This second report builds on these concerns by drawing attention to how police forces across the UK are using these devices and further highlights the adverse national impact of increased police powers within the context of increasing surveillance technology.

Key themes identified in our report:

  • The FOI analysis on the use of mobile biometrics showed the roll out of mobile fingerprint scanners has taken place very quickly with no public consultation or equality impact analysis. 
  • Systematic racial bias was evident in every police force that provided race data.
  • There is no consistency across police forces as to when or why they use this technology. There is no consistent approach to checking fingerprints through the databases. Each police authority implements a different approach with no clear justification or rationale. It is very unclear why police search only the immigration database (IABS) or the police database (IDENT 1) or both. 
  • England is the only country in the UK that piloted this technology and is in the process of hastily deploying it. Two police forces in Wales piloted the scheme in 2019 and are not continuing its roll out. Police Scotland and North Wales Police emphatically stated they have not and will not use mobile fingerprint scanning given legal and ethical concerns
Text on an aquamarine background: The rolls out of mobile fingerprint scanners has taken place very quickly with no public consultation or equality impact analysis. Systematic racial bias was evident in every police force that provided race data. A graphic of a hand holding a fingerprint device is in the bottom left corner. In the right are the logos of RJN and Yorkshire Resists.
Text on a lime green background reads: Kent police overwhelmingly have the highest proportion of immigration arrests (17% of scans led to immigration arrest) and contact with Home Office Command and Control. A graphic of someone being put behind bars by police is at the bottom, with the hashtag #HandsOffOurPrints. RJN and Yorkshire Resists logos are in the bottom left of the image.

Key findings from our report include, but are not limited to:

  • The highest number of scans per area are Met Police (34 in 10,000), Surrey Police (24 in 10,000) Cheshire Police (17 in every 10,000) and Lincolnshire Police (15 in 10,000).
  • For every White North European person stopped and scanned in every 10,000 people, 48 Arabic people are scanned on average across the police jurisdictions.  
  • 14 Black residents are scanned for every White North European, 14 Asian people, almost 4 Chinese people or 2 South East Asian people for every White North European.
  • Kent Police overwhelmingly have the highest proportion of immigration arrests (17% of scans led to immigration arrest) and contact with Home Office Command and Control.

We are not only asking for proper ethical duty and processes to be undertaken, we are asking the police force to listen to these concerns. Our survey ultimately demonstrates the introduction of the Biometric Services Gateway runs fundamentally against public interest and that police becoming a border force means inflicting further harm on racially minoritised who they are required to protect under the Equality Act.

Questions of where public resources are best directed remain a pertinent issue and, in the ‘Recommendations’ section, our report points towards the importance of investing in community advocates, organisations and charities who continuously support individuals experiencing police discrimination or who are victims of hate crimes.

Download the pdf report on STOP THE SCAN: Police use of mobile fingerprinting technology for immigration enforcement:

COVID-19 penalty functions added to police mobiles

An image on an overhead projector of the police mobile app, with sections for eNotebook, Niche Tasking, Command and Control and Searches. The latter contains the fingerprint scanning app, which they call Person Search.

In yet another alarming development the police use of Motorola’s PRONTO software (Police Reporting and Notebook Organiser, PRONTO) which includes the biometric fingerprint scanning app has been updated with COVID-19 penalty functions. This is the result of the emergency police powers granted by the new Coronavirus Bill on March 26th, 2020. This new development will compound the unequal impact of the pandemic with the discrimination and lack of accountability embedded in policing technologies

At the beginning of lockdown, Stop the Scandal wrote an open letter to the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner concerned with the unequal and unjust impact of emergency police powers on Black, Brown and migrant communities. These fears have materialised, as figures show that Black and Brown people are twice more likely to be fined, are over-represented in the number of arrests made for alleged breaches of lockdown arrest and suffer from the excessive use of force. In West Yorkshire we know that 599 fines have been given:

  • 283 in Leeds
  • 133 in Bradford
  • 72 in Wakefield
  • 34 in Calderdale
  • 67 in Kirklees

Out of these fines, 38.2% of people fined were white, 22.1% Asian. They did not say what percentage is Black but we might deduce the rest of the fines were given to Black people. These statistics are resonated by a Big Brother Watch research that examined fines given in England under the Coronavirus Bill and found that Asian people received at least 13% of penalty fines even though they represent 7.8% of the national population and Black people were issued 5% of fines despite being 3.5% of England’s population. Furthermore, rural areas were more likely to issue fines than urban areas. In the same research they found the South Yorkshire Police had announced a taskforce to enforce lockdown regulations.      

But these concerns are not new, and not born out of thin air. Before the pandemic the Stop the Scandal campaign highlighted the potential damage wrought by the biometric fingerprint scanner and the extension of the police role into that of a border force first used by West Yorkshire Police and now nationally. The rollout of handheld fingerprint scanners feeds into the hostile environment where communities are afraid to engage with the police when they need help, protection from abuse, violence  or hate crime. It provides justification for racial profiling and invasive procedures. It shrouds that justification in sanitised ‘tech talk’. It results in inhumane mass deportation and detention. It subjects communities already traumatised by police brutality to further, and more frequent, encounters with institutionalised racism.

In updating the PRONTO suite with COVID-19 penalty functions, the police have steamrolled over the above legitimate criticisms and concerns. Instead of recognising the lasting damage of the devices, or responding to questions over lack of transparency and accountability, the police have sought to normalise the use of the mobile devices and avoid scrutiny. They have treated both dialogue with activists and the pandemic as an opportunity to improve the functioning of a policing technology that will serve to further entrench, normalise and digitalise the racial profiling and discrimination inherent in practices related to stop and search.

The impact of COVID-19 has already been devastating on Black, Brown and migrant communities. The COVID-19 report released by Public Health England last week demonstrates that BME (term used in the report) are more likely to die from the virus. Black people specifically are 4 times more likely to do so. This percentage is increased for people born outside of England. The report found that people from Central and West Africa are 4.5 times more likely to die of COVID-19 while in this country. The numbers are equally alarming for people from “the Caribbean (3.5), South East Asia, which includes Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam (3.4), the Middle East (3.2) and South and Eastern Africa, which includes South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya (3.1)” in comparison to their European counterparts which was “the only group of countries not significantly higher than the average for England”(p.56). A joint report by migrant organisations and campaigns found the hostile environment is having a devastating impact on migrants’ access to healthcare during the COVID-19 crisis. The report concluded 57% of respondents were actively avoiding seeking medical advice because of fear of being charged, their data shared with the Home Office and other immigration enforcement issues. These fears will only increase under  the Schedule 21 of the Coronavirus Act where immigration officers are now given the power to detain anyone suspicious of having the virus for up to 3 hours and constables up to 24 hours, these can be renewed for 9 hours and a further 24 hours respectively. 

Hostile Environment and everyday border agents such as the police will only increase the harassment of Black, Brown and migrant communities, putting their lives at risk. We should refuse to let this burden be doubled by allowing COVID-19 to be used as an excuse to violate human rights and decency and to sweep scrutiny under the carpet. We demand:

  1. Police and government recognise that fining people under the Coronavirus Bill is an overzealous use of police powers which is disproportionately impacting Black, Brown and migrant communities. The digitalisation of COVID-19 fines as the latest addition to PRONTO will only increase this. 
  2. The COVID-19 function (which has not received community review) be removed immediately.
  3. Release data of anyone being detained under the Coronavirus Bill whose data has been shared with the Home Office.
  4. The roll out of handheld biometric fingerprint scanners be reversed before more damage is done.
  5. A firewall is installed between the police database and the Home Office.