Civil Liberty Groups Push Back Against Live Facial Recognition at Notting Hill Carnival (2025)

Crowds at the Notting Hill Carnival reach over a million each summer, making it Europe’s biggest street festival. This year, the Metropolitan Police plan to use live facial recognition (LFR) throughout the celebration, describing it as a tool to help keep people safe. The moment news broke, civil liberty and anti-racism groups pushed back, raising the alarm about privacy, discrimination, and the impact on marginalized communities.

The debate is fierce. Some believe LFR can help prevent crime in the packed crowds. Others argue the tech could cast everyone as a potential suspect, especially in a festival rooted in African Caribbean culture. These concerns set the stage for a larger conversation on how much surveillance is too much, even at events that draw people together in a spirit of joy and unity.

Why the Metropolitan Police Plan to Use Live Facial Recognition at Notting Hill Carnival

Every year, Notting Hill Carnival brings a record-breaking crowd to west London. With over a million attendees expected, the Metropolitan Police have announced plans to use live facial recognition (LFR) at the festival’s entry and exit points. This move has sparked strong opinions, so it’s worth breaking down why the Met says this technology is needed during one of the UK’s biggest cultural events.

Public Safety in High-Density Environments

The police say their priority is to keep everyone safe in a vibrant, crowded atmosphere. Huge festivals come with unique challenges—lost children, medical emergencies, and a need to identify threats early. According to the Met, LFR offers a way to pinpoint people on watchlists who may pose serious risks without casting a broad net over festivalgoers.

• LFR targets specific individuals: The technology checks faces against a list that includes people wanted for serious crimes, those missing from home, or those under court orders for sexual harm prevention.
• Not used inside the event itself: Cameras are set up on routes people use to enter or leave, not within the Carnival boundaries.

The police stress that, with massive crowds, traditional policing such as stop-and-search would be much more intrusive. LFR, in their view, is a less disruptive option that helps protect the public without blanket surveillance.

Identifying Wanted Persons Efficiently

The Met frames LFR as a high-tech update to old policing methods. Rather than asking officers to memorize photos or rely only on tip-offs, the system can quickly flag individuals who need to be found. If someone on the list is spotted, the system alerts officers, who then check and confirm before acting.

Here’s how the process works in simple terms:

1. Cameras scan people walking past selected points.
2. The system checks for matches against a strictly controlled watchlist.
3. An alert is sent to officers if a match is possible.
4. Officers verify the match in person before making a decision.

The goal, according to the police, is to stop violent offenders from blending into crowds or slipping through the cracks, while also reuniting missing children or vulnerable adults with their families.

Claimed Improvements in Facial Recognition Accuracy

One of the biggest criticisms of facial recognition tech has been the risk of misidentification, especially with people of color or women. The Met claims the technology they’re using has seen big upgrades.

• Latest algorithms: These are said to reduce racial and gender bias, with performance independently validated by outside agencies.
• False alerts extremely rare: Police point to test data suggesting that false positives now happen in about 1 in every 33,000 searches.
• Automatic deletion: Images of people who are not matched to the watchlist are deleted right away, protecting privacy for most festivalgoers.

The Met says these safeguards make their surveillance more fair and targeted than ever before.

How the Met Communicates the Need: Necessity and Proportionality

The way the police talk about LFR is deliberate. In statements and press releases, their leaders stress that live facial recognition is only used when they believe the threat level justifies it. They emphasize:

• LFR is only deployed for serious, well-justified reasons—like past incidents of violence or large influxes of people.
• Operations are made public in advance—the public knows when and where the tech is being used.
• Only handpicked, high-priority lists are included—not everyone is scanned against massive databases.

For the Met, using LFR at Carnival is framed as a balanced response: it’s there to spot genuine threats, not watch everyone. They want to reassure the public that, while the technology is powerful, it is used with clear boundaries, rules, and oversight.

By focusing on necessity and proportionality, police say they are walking a careful line between keeping people safe and respecting their rights and freedoms. Whether or not the community accepts this approach remains the key question shaping the conversation.

Civil Liberty and Anti-Racism Groups: Key Concerns Over Facial Recognition

Civil liberty and anti-racism groups are sounding the alarm about the Metropolitan Police bringing live facial recognition (LFR) to Notting Hill Carnival. While the Met argues this tech will keep people safe, campaigners worry it targets the very communities the festival celebrates. Their objections go far deeper than just privacy. Groups like Liberty, Big Brother Watch, and the Runnymede Trust say facial recognition isn’t just about matching faces—it’s about who gets seen and who gets singled out.

Potential for Racial Bias and Discrimination

At the heart of the campaign against LFR is the risk of racial and gender bias. Multiple studies and real cases show that facial recognition systems misidentify Black people and women far more often than they misidentify white men. According to the National Physical Laboratory’s 2023 report, the algorithms the UK police use are less accurate with faces from minority ethnic backgrounds, especially when set at lower sensitivity to minimize false alerts.

Groups like Big Brother Watch and the Runnymede Trust point to several past incidents where Black Londoners were stopped and questioned after being wrongly flagged by LFR. The story of Shaun Thompson, a Black man wrongly detained due to a facial recognition “match,” captured national attention and has become a rallying point for critics.

Key concerns highlighted by campaigners:

• Higher risk of false positives for Black and minority ethnic people, as well as for women.
• Reinforcement of existing biases within policing. If the technology is flawed, those errors reflect and multiply real-world inequalities.
• A “chilling effect” on event attendance. People who know they are more likely to be misidentified may avoid public gatherings, especially where trust in police is already fragile.

A recent letter from Liberty and Big Brother Watch notes that Notting Hill Carnival has deep roots in African Caribbean tradition. Deploying LFR here sends a troubling message that the event itself is seen as a risk, not a celebration.

Research cited by campaigners:

Legal Challenges and Regulatory Gaps

Alongside the risk of discrimination, major gaps in UK law fuel ongoing legal challenges against LFR. There is no dedicated UK legislation that spells out when, how, or why live facial recognition can be used by police. Instead, police rely on loose interpretations of common law and existing data protection rules.

The legal pushback has gathered pace:

• Judicial reviews are ongoing, with victims of misidentification (like Shaun Thompson) challenging the police in high court.
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) recently warned that police use of LFR at Carnival could break European Convention on Human Rights articles covering privacy and freedom of assembly.
• The EHRC has publicly called for strict laws and safeguards to set boundaries for LFR, arguing that the current approach is not compatible with basic democratic freedoms.

Big Brother Watch summed it up in a joint letter: LFR is not only “mass surveillance,” it flips the presumption of innocence, treating festivalgoers as suspects unless cleared by a machine. Legal experts and human rights defenders worry this sets a dangerous standard, especially with no clear avenues for redress if someone is wrongly matched and stopped.

So far, the Met insists it is following data protection laws and applying the Equality Act. Critics respond that these laws were never designed for facial recognition and simply can’t keep up. With no new legislation in sight, these gaps leave LFR deployments open to legal challenge and widespread distrust.

In summary:

• UK law has no clear facial recognition framework; current rules are piecemeal.
• Ongoing high court challenges may shape future rules but leave uncertainty for now.
• National organizations and the EHRC want statutory safeguards and stricter oversight.

For now, the debate remains front and center. With Notting Hill Carnival just around the corner and the legal status unresolved, it’s clear that questions of bias, discrimination, and legality will not fade soon.

The Broader Context: Facial Recognition and Human Rights

Facial recognition at public events like Notting Hill Carnival isn’t just a local story. Worldwide, new AI and surveillance tech is raising pressure on governments to draw the line between public safety and basic freedoms. When police use biometric tools in busy, multicultural settings, big questions come up about privacy, freedom of assembly, and discrimination. To understand Carnival’s debate, we have to look at what’s happening across Europe and beyond, especially with new laws like the EU AI Act.

Surveillance at Public Gatherings: Privacy on the Line

Whenever police scan faces in real time, the balance tips toward mass monitoring. At public events, this can mean everyone is watched, not just those on a wanted list. Privacy isn’t only about hiding—it’s about being able to show up and participate in civic life without fear or suspicion.

• Surveillance chills free assembly: When crowds know cameras are tracking their every move, people sometimes stay away. This can undercut the whole point of festivals, protests, or parades, which rely on open participation.
• Historical misuse: Past policing has often focused extra attention on communities of color. Legacy patterns don’t go away with new tech—they get new tools.
• Community trust at risk: A single wrongful identification can erode years of work between police and community leaders.

The EU AI Act: Raising the Bar on Safeguards

The EU AI Act, recently approved, sets the new global standard for regulating artificial intelligence in public life. It puts privacy and anti-discrimination front and center, going further than many national laws.

• Real-time biometric ID restricted: The Act largely prohibits using live facial recognition in public places, with only narrow exceptions (like finding abducted persons or stopping immediate threats).
• Biometric data labeled as “high risk”: This means strict data protection, transparency, and accountability requirements apply.
• Impact assessments must come first: Before rolling out facial recognition, authorities have to weigh the potential harms, including risks to vulnerable groups.

Yet even with these rules, there are gaps. Law enforcement can ask for exceptions, which introduces room for overreach. Loopholes in language or vague definitions create gray areas that privacy campaigners say could undermine the law’s intent.

Global Warnings: Risks of Bias and Function Creep

Outside the UK, reports show that facial recognition often works least well for those most likely to be over-policed. Marginalized groups remain at the highest risk of misidentification, wrongful stops, or even arrest due to tech flaws or bias in training data.

Researchers, civil rights watchdogs, and tech experts warn about “function creep.” This happens when a system built for one use, like catching fugitives, ends up used for other things (such as tracking protestors or gathering data on vulnerable groups) without proper checks.

Common risks with public deployment of facial recognition:

• Inaccuracy: False matches hit Black and minority faces at higher rates.
• Lack of transparency: People don’t always know they’re on camera, or how the data is used.
• Limited accountability: When AI is provided by outside tech companies, it’s harder to tell who is responsible if things go wrong.
• Widening surveillance scope: Systems often expand beyond their original goal without public debate.

Building Trust: What Global Experts Recommend

From European privacy boards to local campaigners, the path forward is clearer when public safety doesn’t cost civil rights. The broad set of recommendations from experts and rights groups includes:

• Mandatory public consultation for any new surveillance rollout.
• Stronger, enforceable redress options if someone faces harm from wrongful identification.
• Routine bias audits and public sharing of error rates by race, gender, and age.
• Clear limits on data storage and sharing outside law enforcement.

Without these protections, the promise of new AI can backfire, especially in public events where gathering together is itself an act of community and celebration.

By looking at how the wider world is setting rules, it’s clear Carnival’s debate is part of a much bigger conversation about technology, rights, and trust in our shared public spaces.

What Happens Next? Legal, Ethical, and Social Implications

With civil liberty groups and anti-racism campaigners calling for a halt to facial recognition at Notting Hill Carnival, the ball is now in the court of the Metropolitan Police, lawmakers, and (potentially) UK courts. What will happen if the police go ahead or back down? The answers could set the tone for public events and policing far beyond this summer. Let’s break down the risks, the law, and what it all means for trust and freedom.

Possible Outcomes: Proceed or Withdraw

If the Met proceeds with live facial recognition (LFR), they risk pushing communities further away—especially if even one person is wrongly flagged. Critics argue that, even with updated algorithms, mistakes and bias can slip through. Legal challenges are waiting in the wings, and every misstep will add fuel to calls for a legislative crackdown.

On the other hand, if the police pause or ditch their plans, it could:

• Ease fears for Carnival’s attendees, especially those who feel targeted by surveillance.
• Show respect for community voices asking for genuine consultation, not one-way policing.
• Increase pressure for a full review of how and when LFR is used across all public events.

Each path carries weight. The decision sets a public example for how the police respond to rights-based criticism—not just at Carnival, but anywhere surveillance is considered.

Legal Decisions and Upcoming Legislation

Legal pressure is mounting on the Met and other forces across the UK. There’s no dedicated law in the UK for live facial recognition—only patchy guidance and general data protection rules. Judges, campaigners, and watchdogs like the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) argue that’s not good enough.

Right now, several key things could tip the scales:

• Upcoming court rulings: Judicial reviews could put clear limits on LFR or demand stronger protections before any future festival use.
• Intervention from regulators: Groups like the EHRC are warning publicly that current deployments are likely to clash with European human rights laws. That includes privacy, freedom of assembly, and the right not to be discriminated against.
• Push for new laws: The political spotlight on Carnival increases calls for Parliament to write clear, binding rules: when can police use LFR, who oversees them, and what happens if someone is wrongly targeted?

The table below highlights some areas where new rules would make a big difference:

Social and Ethical Risks

The storm over Carnival isn’t just about the law—it’s about who feels safe and welcome at public events. LFR fuels debate around inclusion, trust, and what it means to be free in a shared space.

Here are some of the big social and ethical concerns:

• Community trust: Rolling out controversial tech without consent can deepen suspicion, making it harder for police and public to work together.
• Discrimination risk: False positives stack up higher among Black, Asian, and minority ethnic Londoners. Each mistake is more than a number—it chips away at the sense of belonging.
• Event atmosphere: Knowing cameras are tracking faces can stifle the joy at gatherings like Carnival. People may choose not to show up, changing the spirit of the festival itself.

Some people compare public space to a dance floor. For everyone to feel free to join in, there has to be trust that no one will be unfairly pulled aside or singled out.

Bigger Picture for Public Events and Policing

However the story unfolds at Carnival, UK policing is facing a crossroads. The debate reaches beyond a single event to festivals, protests, and everyday life in a diverse society.

Here’s what’s at stake:

• Setting national standards: With Europe tightening rules on biometric surveillance (like under the new EU AI Act), the UK is under pressure to catch up and protect rights.
• Shaping public policy: How authorities deal with backlash and lawsuits today will inform how they use tech tomorrow—at concerts, sports events, and demonstrations across the country.
• Public trust in innovation: Using new technology without real consent can erode confidence in both police and political leaders.

Smart policy balances safety and freedom, and it’s usually built with the public, not just for the public. If the Met listens this year, the results could echo through policing for years to come. If not, expect louder calls for change and firmer legal boundaries around every surveillance camera at public events.

Conclusion

Live facial recognition at Notting Hill Carnival has sparked strong reactions from every side. Supporters see it as a way to boost safety in one of the UK’s largest public gatherings, especially with growing crowds and real risks. Police point to recent tech improvements and their promise to use LFR only for serious crimes, with better accuracy and quick deletion of non-matches.

Civil liberty and anti-racism groups remain unconvinced. They warn that the technology can target the festival’s core communities and fuel mistrust. Groups like the EHRC say that, without strict laws and real oversight, the dangers—bias, excessive surveillance, and harm to fundamental freedoms—outweigh any benefits.

The debate now sits at the heart of a wider struggle over public space, rights, and trust. Decisions made for Carnival will shape how technology and policing fit together at big events across the country. As the conversation continues, everyone—with different fears and hopes—wants the same thing: safety, respect, and a true sense of belonging for everyone who comes to celebrate. Thanks for reading. Feel free to share your thoughts below or with your community.