Tag: surveillance

Tech Insight : How AI Can Make Cameras Look Away

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Artificial intelligence has given surveillance cameras the ability to recognise and track what they see, yet researchers are now demonstrating how AI can also be turned against those systems, creating patterns that leave people and vehicles perfectly visible to humans while potentially making them much harder for automated surveillance to detect.

What Has Been Developed?

US cyber security researcher Bill Swearingen has spent around a year investigating whether specially designed visual patterns can interfere with the computer vision increasingly built into modern surveillance systems.

The result is noRecognition, a project using AI-generated “adversarial patterns” designed specifically to confuse object-detection algorithms.

This is very different from hiding from a conventional camera. For example, someone wearing one of the patterns could still appear clearly in the recorded footage, while a vehicle covered with one could remain equally visible. The aim, however, is to make the software analysing those images fail to recognise what it is seeing, potentially preventing the automated detection or alert that would normally follow.

Swearingen’s aim is to give individuals greater control over whether automated surveillance systems can identify and track them as they move through public spaces. His research therefore focuses on disrupting the algorithmic analysis taking place behind the camera rather than preventing the camera itself from recording. As the noRecognition website puts it: “Privacy is not a luxury. It is a fundamental right.”

Teaching AI To Confuse AI

Creating patterns capable of doing that reliably has required an enormous amount of experimentation.

For example, Swearingen reportedly began by testing designs against individual open-source computer-vision systems before developing a reinforcement-learning model capable of improving them automatically. When a pattern failed to fool a detector, the model could learn from the result, alter its approach and try again.

Around 31 million tests later, the system can generate new patterns continuously, with successive designs intended to become increasingly effective against the detection software being targeted.

Tested Against Different Surveillance Systems

Swearingen’s published research covers an 11-detector test environment involving person detection, face detection and recognition models, including a production-grade person detector extracted from a deployed surveillance camera. Results vary considerably between models, garment coverage and test conditions, with many of the strongest findings still based on digital simulations rather than physical clothing facing real cameras.

Importantly, noRecognition also says it records results where the patterns fail, describing its approach simply as: “We publish the results that went against us too.”

That distinction is quite important because something capable of confusing an algorithm using digital imagery may not necessarily work when printed onto fabric and exposed to different distances, lighting conditions, body shapes and camera angles.

Putting The Idea On The Road

A recent demonstration at the DEF CON cyber security conference in Las Vegas provided an important step towards testing whether the principle could work outside a computer simulation.

With help from automotive media company Donut Media, one of Swearingen’s patterns was applied to a 2009 Toyota Yaris before the vehicle was presented to a Flock surveillance camera.

The demonstration reportedly succeeded in defeating automated detection, although Swearingen acknowledged that the vehicle’s wheels presented a particular challenge. It provided early evidence that adversarial patterns can potentially move beyond carefully controlled digital experiments into real-world surveillance environments.

The project is also exploring pattern-covered T-shirts, hoodies and other clothing. Swearingen is deliberately keeping his most effective designs away from the public internet, partly because making them widely available could give surveillance technology developers the data needed to train their own systems against them.

CCTV Isn’t Just Watching Anymore

The wider significance of this research comes from how dramatically surveillance cameras themselves have changed.

Traditional CCTV largely captured images for later examination, which meant the usefulness of a large camera network was limited partly by the number of people available to watch or search its footage.

By removing much of that limitation, computer vision allows AI to analyse enormous volumes of imagery automatically, identifying people and vehicles, reading number plates, detecting particular objects and making recorded footage searchable without somebody manually watching every minute.

Rather than simply recording what happened, modern surveillance cameras are increasingly supported by software that decides what is happening, what deserves attention and what information should be extracted from the scene.

By targeting precisely that additional layer of intelligence, adversarial patterns could cause a detection system to fail to classify a person even though the camera has successfully recorded them, meaning the footage still exists but the automated system designed to find that individual may never flag it.

An AI Arms Race?

That creates a potentially important new contest within computer vision. Camera manufacturers can improve their detection models and train them against known attempts at evasion. Researchers can then use increasingly powerful AI to search for new patterns that exploit different weaknesses, potentially creating a continuing cycle of detection and counter-detection.

Swearingen’s project appears to show how quickly that process can become automated. For example, rather than a human designer manually creating each new camouflage pattern, AI can repeatedly test possibilities and retain those that perform best.

The technology also raises an important question about the balance between privacy and security. A technology capable of reducing automated tracking could appeal to people concerned about pervasive surveillance, yet similar techniques could potentially be exploited by someone deliberately attempting to evade legitimate security or law-enforcement systems.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the research highlights an emerging weakness that becomes more relevant as organisations increasingly rely on intelligent cameras for security, access control, retail monitoring, vehicle recognition and automated alerts. Computer vision can dramatically increase the usefulness of surveillance, although businesses should avoid treating an AI detection as an infallible substitute for conventional security controls.

The development also shows how familiar cyber security concepts are moving into the physical world. Protecting a surveillance system increasingly means considering not only whether somebody can hack its network or access its recordings, but whether the intelligence interpreting those recordings can itself be deliberately manipulated.

Perhaps most importantly, this research demonstrates an unusual consequence of the rapid development of AI. The same broad technology that has taught cameras to understand the world around them can now be used to discover exactly what those cameras struggle to understand, potentially creating an ongoing contest between AI-powered surveillance and AI-powered methods designed to defeat it.

Featured Article : New EU Cars Must Now Watch The Driver

Posted on by Paul Stradling

From 7 July 2026, every newly manufactured passenger car and van sold in the European Union must include a new generation of advanced safety systems, including technology that monitors whether drivers are paying attention to the road, marking another significant step towards vehicles that actively watch over both their occupants and everyone around them.

The Next Stage Of Smarter Vehicle Safety

The changes form part of the second phase of the EU’s General Safety Regulation, which has gradually introduced advanced driver assistance systems as mandatory equipment rather than optional extras.

The first phase, which took effect in 2024, introduced technologies such as intelligent speed assistance, lane-keeping systems, reversing detection and driver drowsiness warnings.

This latest phase goes further by requiring all newly manufactured passenger cars and vans to include advanced emergency braking capable of detecting pedestrians and cyclists, a driver distraction warning system, improved forward vision, new tyre performance tests and a larger area of safety glass designed to offer greater protection for pedestrians.

The European Commission says these new requirements are intended to make “safer cars, safer roads” while helping protect “pedestrians and cyclists, address crashes caused by driver distraction, and encourage widespread adoption of advanced driver-assistance systems.”

The Camera Watching The Driver

Perhaps the most talked-about feature is the new driver distraction warning system.

Unlike traditional driver assistance features that monitor the road ahead, this system uses a cabin-facing camera to observe the driver’s head position and gaze direction. If it determines that the driver’s attention has wandered away from the road for too long, it provides a warning encouraging them to refocus.

The technology is designed to reduce one of the biggest causes of road accidents, namely driver distraction.

Importantly, this is not an autonomous driving system. The driver remains fully responsible for controlling the vehicle at all times. Instead, the technology acts as another safety aid, much like automatic emergency braking or lane departure warnings.

Even so, the requirement has generated debate among privacy campaigners, who question the increasing use of cameras inside vehicle cabins, even where the systems are designed to analyse attention in real time rather than permanently record drivers.

Building Towards More Automated Vehicles

Although the regulation is focused on improving safety rather than introducing self-driving cars, it also reflects a much broader change taking place across the automotive industry.

Modern vehicles increasingly rely on cameras, radar, sensors and powerful onboard computers to assist drivers with everyday tasks. As more of this technology becomes mandatory, every new vehicle effectively gains much of the hardware needed to support increasingly advanced driving functions in the future.

Although the distinction is important, it’s worth noting that these are still driver assistance systems rather than autonomous vehicles. That means they’re really just designed to support a human driver, who remains responsible for the vehicle, rather than making driving decisions independently.

However, the same sensors and processing power that help detect pedestrians or monitor driver attention today are likely to form part of the foundation for more advanced automated driving capabilities tomorrow.

Part Of Vision Zero

The regulation forms part of the European Union’s long-term Vision Zero strategy, which aims to reduce road deaths and serious injuries to as close to zero as possible by 2050.

While European roads are already among the safest in the world, thousands of people continue to die or suffer serious injuries every year in road accidents.

The European Commission believes expanding the use of advanced safety technology across every new vehicle will make a significant contribution towards reducing those numbers.

As the Commission explains: “Manufacturers were given more time to develop these more technically demanding features, which is why the legislation was rolled out in multiple phases.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses operating company cars or commercial vehicle fleets, these technologies will increasingly become standard equipment rather than expensive optional extras.

Over time, that could help reduce accidents involving distracted driving while improving protection for pedestrians and cyclists, potentially lowering repair costs, insurance claims and vehicle downtime.

The wider significance extends beyond road safety. The regulation demonstrates how software, cameras and artificial intelligence are becoming fundamental components of modern vehicles rather than premium add-ons. Cars are steadily evolving into sophisticated computing platforms that continuously monitor both their surroundings and, increasingly, the behaviour of their drivers.

For organisations purchasing vehicles over the coming years, the conversation is therefore likely to become less about choosing advanced safety technology and more about understanding how increasingly intelligent vehicles fit within wider policies covering driver training, fleet management, privacy and data governance. The move towards smarter vehicles is no longer optional and is becoming the new baseline for road transport across Europe.

Tech Insight : More UK Retailers Using Surveillance

Posted on by Paul Stradling

In this Tech Insight, we look at how retailers across the UK are deploying new technology to deter shoplifting, reduce abuse of staff plus gather better evidence, whilst retail crime hits record levels.

Why Retailers Are Acting Now

The British Retail Consortium’s Annual Crime Survey reports losses from customer theft reaching £2.2 billion in 2023/24 and over 20 million shoplifting incidents, while violence and abuse against retail workers rose to more than 2,000 incidents per day. Retailers simultaneously lifted spending on prevention to £1.8 billion, yet it seems that satisfaction with police response remains low, with 61% rating it “poor” or “very poor”. “Retail crime is spiralling out of control,” said BRC chief executive Helen Dickinson, calling for industry, government and police to act together.

Figures from the Institute of Customer Service (ICS) provide more service sector context. For example, 42 per cent of public‑facing workers reported abuse in the prior six months, up 19 per cent year on year. 37 per cent even said they had considered quitting, and over a quarter said they had taken sick leave, according to figures highlighted in national coverage of ICS’s “Service with Respect” campaign and open letter urging stronger legal protections for all service workers.

Bodycams On The Shop Floor

It may surprise many people to know that body‑worn video is now commonplace across parts of the high street. For example, Poundland originally reported an 11 per cent drop in violence after rolling out Motorola Solutions VT100 cameras, with footage managed via Motorola’s evidence platform and linked to CCTV. It should be noted here that Poundland has since been sold (by Pepco Group to Gordon Brothers’ Peach Bidco for £1 on 12 June 2025) and it’s not clear if it’s still using the cameras. Another popular high street name, H&M, is piloting bodycams in three UK stores to test impact on de‑escalation and incident reduction. Also, Tesco now uses bodycams for store and some delivery colleagues, activated when staff feel unsafe. EE even equips store teams with cameras that can stream incidents to monitoring teams. These measures are all intended both to act as visible deterrents and to strengthen evidence for police.

Facial Recognition Trials Move Into The Mainstream

Some chains are trialling facial recognition to identify repeat offenders linked to theft or abuse. For example, Sainsbury’s is running an eight‑week pilot with Facewatch in selected stores in London and Bath, where alerts are generated only when someone on a store‑defined watchlist enters. In terms of how effective it could be, Iceland has reported that its early use of Facewatch led to a 30 per cent reduction in violent incidents where deployed, and that it plans a further roll‑out of the technology later this year. Southern Co‑op and other retailers have used similar watchlist alerts for several years.

Retailers say that systems focus on known repeat offenders and that signage is used at trial sites. Sainsbury’s has framed the pilot as a staff‑safety measure in locations with high repeat offending. Iceland’s Richard Walker argued publicly that the technology helps trained store teams to make calm, proportionate interventions.

AI‑Enhanced CCTV And “Smarter” Monitoring

Beyond face matching, retailers are also now trialling AI‑assisted video analytics that compare what shoppers pick up with what is scanned, flagging likely non‑scans in real time. For example, Trigo Retail recently launched a computer‑vision loss‑prevention platform in the UK that tracks shopping behaviours without storing biometric identifiers, thereby aiming to provide targeted alerts rather than blanket monitoring. As Trigo co‑founder Daniel Gabay recently said, “The most effective retail security technology today isn’t about adding more barriers or locks, it’s about making existing infrastructure smarter”.

Security Hubs, Headsets And Digital Crime Reporting

Tesco has set up a 24/7 national Security Operations Centre in Daventry to analyse thousands of hours of CCTV, join up evidence and share intelligence with police. The supermarket says the hub monitors clusters of stores and operates year‑round.

In a different approach, Currys has opted to roll out VoCoVo headsets across stores so colleagues can call for support instantly and coordinate responses. It has also taken Auror’s crime‑reporting platform nationwide after a 12‑week trial identified 10 repeat offenders, led to three arrests, and prevented about £20,000 of theft. Currys also cites a 58 per cent year‑on‑year reduction in aggressive incidents during March–April. The company says incident logging is faster and more consistent, supporting police engagement.

The Home Secretary has publicly urged more UK retailers to use crime‑intelligence platforms like Auror and signalled support for broader data‑sharing with police where lawful and proportionate.

Fogging Devices And Smart Safes

Alongside analytics and reporting, several retailers are investing in fogging and misting systems that rapidly fill areas with disorienting fog during an incident, forensic marking to tag stolen goods for later recovery, and time‑delay stock safes for high‑value items. EE says these measures, combined with tracking tools for stolen devices, are reducing opportunities for smash‑and‑grab theft and improving staff safety.

Is The Technology Actually Working?

In terms of whether these hi-tech approaches to tackling crime are actually working, it seems that some deployments are reporting measurable impact. For example, Poundland’s reported 11 per cent reduction in violence post‑bodycams does appear to indicate a deterrent effect when incidents are recorded and evidence quality improves. Also, Currys’ 58 per cent drop in aggressive thefts during a focused period, along with identified repeat offenders and arrests, could suggest that intelligence‑led reporting can help direct police resources. However, results vary by store, offender behaviour can displace to nearby locations, and none of these tools replace visible policing.

What Privacy Groups Are Saying

Privacy advocates argue that live facial recognition in shops risks normalising biometric checks for everyday purchases and can harm people when errors occur. For example, Big Brother Watch has urged Sainsbury’s to stop its trial, calling the approach “deeply disproportionate and chilling”, and warning that it “turns shoppers into suspects”. The group also raises concerns about privately run watchlists, limited transparency, and the lack of robust redress when people are wrongly flagged.

Campaigners also point to documented cases and regulatory complaints in which customers were allegedly misidentified in stores using commercial facial recognition. In one case, a woman said she discovered she had been placed on a Facewatch watchlist after a dispute over low-value goods, prompting a complaint to the regulator about necessity and proportionality. Such incidents underline why rights groups want independent oversight, strict targeting to serious repeat offending, and clearer routes to challenge mistakes.

The Information Commissioner’s Office describes facial recognition in public-facing spaces as highly intrusive, and expects organisations to complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment for each deployment, show a strong lawful basis, and evidence that less intrusive methods would not achieve the aim. The regulator’s guidance also stresses governance around watchlists, meaningful human review of matches, recording and correcting false positives, careful data retention, and transparency with clear signage.

The Evolving Legal And Policy Picture

Ministers have pledged to create a standalone offence of assaulting a retail worker in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill, and signalled plans to remove perceived barriers to charging thefts under £200. Trade bodies are pressing for police to attend incidents more routinely, and for protections to extend to a wider group of public-facing roles. For retailers piloting facial recognition or AI video analytics, compliance is practical and specific, i.e. to set out a clear lawful basis and DPIA, evidence necessity and proportionality, display clear signage, apply tight retention periods with human review of matches, and provide straightforward routes for people to challenge mistakes.

Operational Reality For Businesses

Understandably, it seems that retailers are focused on what actually works in-store. For example, body cameras are known to deter aggression and produce evidence that can be used. Also, AI video systems can spot items that are not scanned and tighten loss prevention without adding physical barriers. Store headsets and digital crime reporting speed up responses and improve the quality of referrals to the police, and central security hubs connect patterns across regions and help investigations move faster.

It should be noted, however, that introducing these measures is not simply a case of just plug and play. It needs training for staff, clear procedures, and close working with local police so that evidence gathered in store is followed up.

Competitors, Customers And Others

With the use of this kind of tech by some retailers, competitors face a strategic question, i.e. if early adopters show clear reductions in violence and stock losses, others are likely to follow or risk falling behind on safety and loss‑prevention. For customers, the line between protection and surveillance needs careful management to maintain trust. Clear signage, narrow watchlists, rapid deletion of non‑matches and accessible complaint routes matter for legitimacy. For staff and unions, evidence that measures reduce assaults and abuse will be critical to ongoing support. For regulators and campaigners, the priority remains ensuring deployments are narrowly tailored, evidence‑led and subject to meaningful oversight.

Key Challenges To Watch

It seems, however, that questions remain about how these measures perform in real stores. For example, evidence is still building and can vary by location, store format and offender behaviour. Also, facial recognition carries a risk of misidentification, so there must be strong human review and clear routes to correct mistakes. Data retention, watchlist criteria and any information sharing need tight governance and regular audit. Without consistent police follow up, even well documented incidents may not progress, which reduces the deterrent that retailers and staff are looking for.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

It seems that technology has now moved from trial to toolkit. Bodycams, AI-supported CCTV, crime reporting platforms and central security hubs are all reportedly delivering practical gains where deployments are targeted, well trained and supported by local policing. Facial recognition remains the most contested, which is why governance, human review and visible transparency need to be embedded from the start. None of this is a silver bullet, it is a set of controls that work best together and only when the basics of staff training and incident follow up are in place.

For UK businesses the lesson is to invest where the benefits are clear, measure results store by store, and publish what works so staff and customers can see the value. Build privacy and accuracy into the design, with narrow watchlists, short retention periods and simple routes for people to challenge mistakes. Engage early with police, unions and regulators so evidence gathered in store is acted on, not left on a server. Competitors that delay now look like risking higher losses and lower staff confidence, while those that proceed without robust safeguards risk reputational damage and regulatory attention.

For customers, trust depends on openness and restraint. Clear signage, clear explanations and visible accountability help reassure people that security measures are there to protect, not to monitor ordinary shopping. For staff, the test is whether incidents decline and confidence rises, which should be tracked through surveys and incident data.

Tech News : Croydon First Place To Get Permanent Facial Recognition Cameras

Posted on by Paul Stradling

It’s been reported that Croydon is set to become the first place in the UK (and possibly the democratic world) to host permanent live facial recognition (LFR) cameras on its streets.

Two Fixed Units This Summer

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed the installation of two fixed units in the town centre this summer, the first fixed deployment of the technology in the UK.

What Is Live Facial Recognition and How Does It Work?

Live facial recognition (LFR) technology uses cameras to scan the faces of people passing through a defined area in real time. The images are instantly compared against a police watchlist, which may include suspects, wanted criminals, vulnerable individuals, and even victims of crime.

If a match is found, an alert is sent to nearby officers who are on standby and ready to make an arrest. If there is no match or the alert turns out to be a false positive, the captured image is deleted.

The Met insists the system is accurate, quoting a false match rate of less than one percent during its mobile van trials across London. However, as this tech becomes fixed and potentially more widespread, questions are being raised about its reliability, legality, and ethical implications.

Why Croydon, and Why Now?

Croydon has long struggled with violent crime. For example, the borough recorded more than 10,000 violent offences in a single year, making it one of London’s most crime-plagued areas. High-profile tragedies like the fatal stabbing of schoolgirl Elianne Andam outside the Whitgift Centre last year have amplified public concern.

It seems that this may well be the reason why the Met has chosen Croydon as the launch site for permanent LFR deployment. It’s been reported that the fixed cameras will be installed on North End and London Road (both busy pedestrianised streets) and mounted on lampposts and buildings. Crucially, the Met says the cameras will only be switched on when officers are present and ready to respond.

According to Superintendent Mitch Carr, the move will make LFR a “business as usual” policing tool, rather than relying on the availability of roving LFR vans. “It will give us much more flexibility around the days and times we can run the operations,” he told community leaders earlier this month.

What Are the Claimed Benefits?

The Met claims that the technology is already proving its worth. For example, last year, mobile facial recognition units reportedly led to over 500 arrests across London, including the identification of suspects wanted for stalking, domestic abuse and rape. In Croydon alone, about 200 arrests were linked to LFR use, including at least two alleged rapists.

Supporters argue that fixed cameras will enhance public safety and act as a powerful deterrent to criminals. Croydon South MP Chris Philp, who also serves as the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, called the move a “logical next step”. In a recent interview with The Times he was quoted as saying: “Those few people opposing this technology need to explain why they don’t want wanted criminals to be arrested.” It’s been reported that for some residents, the technology is a welcome intervention.

But What Are the Critics Saying?

Despite the police’s reassurances, the move has ignited fierce opposition from privacy campaigners and civil liberties groups.

Big Brother Watch, a leading advocacy group, is particularly scathing. Its interim director, Rebecca Vincent, called the Croydon deployment “an alarming expansion of the surveillance state” and part of a “steady slide into a dystopian nightmare”.

She added: “It also underscores the urgent need for legislative safeguards on LFR, which to date has not been addressed in any parliamentary legislation.”

One of the key criticisms is the absence of clear regulation. There is no UK law specifically governing the use of LFR technology, meaning that police forces are left to write their own policies on how it should be used.

Big Brother Watch also points to real-world examples of things going wrong, i.e. cases of mistaken identity by the camera systems. For example, one such case involved Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife crime campaigner who was wrongly identified as a suspect at London Bridge station. He was detained for nearly 30 minutes despite presenting multiple forms of ID proving he was not the wanted individual.

Madeleine Stone, Senior Advocacy Officer at the group, said: “Everyone gets something wrong sometimes, but what happens when the algorithm gets it wrong? Who is responsible then?”

Even more concerning, critics say, is the makeup of the ‘police watchlists’. These reportedly include not only suspects but also victims and vulnerable individuals, thereby blurring the line between surveillance and profiling.

Legality and Oversight Still in Question

The introduction of permanent facial recognition cameras comes at a time when the legal framework around the technology remains unclear. For example, a House of Lords committee recently expressed “deep concern” over its unregulated use and campaigners have called for Parliament to intervene.

In contrast, the government seems to be doubling down. The current Labour administration recently launched a £20 million fund to expand LFR use across UK police forces.

Despite this political momentum, critics remain unconvinced. Big Brother Watch recently filed legal action in response to what it calls an “unprecedented expansion” of facial recognition surveillance in both public and private sectors.

The group has warned that the Cardiff trial during the Six Nations tournament, where over 160,000 people were scanned and no arrests made, shows that mass surveillance doesn’t always yield results. In that instance, temporary LFR cameras were deployed throughout the city centre, but the operation failed to identify any wanted suspects.

Is the Technology Effective or Just Theatrical?

The core question for many people remains whether permanent facial recognition cameras will genuinely help tackle crime or whether the move is more about public reassurance and political point-scoring, i.e. more of a theatrical gesture than a real, practical solution.

Press reports about the subject (e.g. in the Metro) highlight how some Croydon residents clearly welcome the technology, particularly after years of rising violent crime and high-profile incidents in the town centre. With concerns about gang activity, knife crime and anti-social behaviour dominating local conversation, it’s no surprise that many see any effort to increase safety as a step in the right direction.

However, doubts persist. In a borough where offenders often wear masks, balaclavas or hoodies to obscure their identities, it’s unclear how effective facial recognition will actually be in real-world conditions. Some commentators have also noted how the fixed locations of the new cameras may also work against them once people know where the cameras are, avoiding them could be as simple as taking a different route.

What This Could Mean For Your Business?

The decision to install permanent facial recognition cameras in Croydon isn’t just a local policing initiative – it’s the first real test of whether this kind of surveillance can be embedded into everyday British life. With no specific laws governing its use, and police forces writing their own rules, the move exposes a major gap in oversight that lawmakers have so far failed to address.

If the technology proves effective, it could pave the way for wider adoption in other towns and cities, which would bring facial recognition into regular public and commercial spaces. For UK businesses, particularly those in high-footfall retail or transport hubs, that might mean closer partnerships with police or even the rollout of their own systems. However, this could raise fresh challenges around data protection, customer consent, and reputational risk, especially as public awareness of privacy rights continues to grow.

For residents and civil liberties groups, the concern is not just how the technology works, but also how it’s controlled, and who gets to decide where the limits lie. As Croydon essentially becomes the UK’s surveillance testbed, its experience will likely shape future policy, public trust, and the broader role of biometric surveillance in Britain’s urban life. Whether it’s a breakthrough or a step too far, the rest of the country is now watching closely.

Tech News : Google Lifts AI Ban on Weapons and Surveillance

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Google has revised its AI principles, lifting its ban on using artificial intelligence (AI) for the development of weapons and surveillance tools.

What Did the Previous Principles State?

In 2018, Google established its Responsible AI Principles to guide the ethical use of artificial intelligence in its products and services. Among these was a clear commitment not to develop AI applications intended for use in weapons or where the primary purpose was surveillance. The company also pledged not to design or deploy AI that would cause overall harm or contravene widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.

These principles emerged in response to employee protests and backlash over Google’s involvement in Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative using AI to analyse drone footage. Thousands of employees signed a petition, and some resigned, fearing their work could be used for military purposes.

What Has Changed and Why?

Google’s new AI principles, as outlined in a blog on its website by senior executives James Manyika and Sir Demis Hassabis, remove the explicit ban on military and surveillance uses of AI. Instead, the principles emphasise a broader commitment to developing AI in alignment with human rights and international law but do not rule out national security applications.

The update comes amidst what Google describes as a “global competition for AI leadership.”

The company argues that democratic nations and private organisations need to work together on AI development to safeguard security and uphold values like freedom, equality, and human rights.

“We believe democracies should lead in AI development, guided by core values,” Google stated, highlighting its role in advancing AI responsibly while supporting national security efforts.

The strategic importance of AI to Google’s business has been highlighted when its parent company, Alphabet, committed to spending $75 billion on AI projects last year, a 29 per cent increase from previous estimates. Alphabet has again significantly increased its AI investment for 2025, and the latest budget allocations indicate a strong push towards AI infrastructure, research, and applications across various sectors, including national security.

Criticism from Human Rights Organisations

Google’s decision to change its AI policy in this way has sparked debate and concern, with human rights advocates warning of serious consequences.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) and other advocacy groups have expressed grave concerns about Google’s policy shift.

For example, Human Rights Watch says in a blog post on its website that: “For a global industry leader to abandon red lines it set for itself signals a concerning shift, at a time when we need responsible leadership in AI more than ever.” The organisation also warns that AI-powered military tools complicate accountability for battlefield decisions, which can have life-or-death consequences.

HRW’s blog post also makes the point that voluntary corporate guidelines are insufficient to protect human rights and that enforceable regulations are necessary, saying: “Existing international human rights law and standards do apply in the use of AI, and regulation can be crucial in translating norms into practice.”

Doomsday Clock

The Doomsday Clock, an assessment of existential threats facing humanity, recently cited the growing use of AI in military targeting systems as a factor in its latest assessment. The report highlighted that AI-powered military systems have already been used in conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, raising concerns about machines making lethal decisions.

The Militarisation of AI

The potential for AI to transform warfare has been a topic of intense debate for some time now. For example, AI can automate complex military operations, assist in intelligence gathering, and enhance logistics. However, concerns about autonomous weapons, sometimes called “killer robots”, have led to calls for stricter regulation.

In the UK, a recent parliamentary report emphasised the strategic advantages AI offers on the battlefield. Emma Lewell-Buck, the MP who chaired the report, noted that AI would “change the way defence works, from the back office to the frontline.”

In the United States, the Department of Defense is investing heavily in AI as part of its $500 billion modernisation plan. This competitive pressure is likely one reason Google has shifted its stance on military AI applications. Analysts believe that Alphabet is positioning itself to compete with tech rivals such as Microsoft and Amazon, which have maintained partnerships with military agencies.

Implications for Google and the World

The decision to lift the ban on AI for weapons and surveillance could have significant implications for Google, its users, and the global AI market. For example:

– Reputation and trust. It may put Google’s reputation as a socially responsible company at risk. The company’s historic “Don’t be evil” mantra, which was later replaced by “Do the right thing,” had helped it maintain a positive image. Critics argue that compromising on its AI principles undermines this legacy.

– Employee dissent could also resurface. Back in 2018, internal protests were instrumental in Google walking away from Project Maven (a Pentagon AI project for drone surveillance). While the company has emphasised transparency and responsible AI governance, it remains to be seen whether employees and users will accept these assurances.

– Human rights and security risks. Human rights organisations warn that AI’s deployment in military and surveillance contexts poses significant risks. Autonomous weapons, for example, could reduce accountability for lethal actions, while AI-driven surveillance could be misused to suppress dissent and violate privacy.

The United Nations has called for greater regulation of AI in military contexts. A 2023 report by the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights described the lack of oversight of AI technologies as a “serious threat to global stability.”

– Impact on AI regulation. Google’s policy shift highlights what many see as a need for stronger regulations. As HRW points out, voluntary principles are not a substitute for enforceable laws. Governments around the world are already grappling with how to regulate AI effectively, with the European Union advancing its AI Act and the United States updating its National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) framework.

If democratic nations fail to establish clear rules, there is a risk of a global “race to the bottom” in AI development, where companies and countries prioritise technological dominance over ethical considerations.

– AI Industry Competition. Google’s decision is likely to intensify competition within the AI industry. The company’s increased investment in AI aligns with its strategic priorities, particularly in areas such as AI-powered search, healthcare, and cybersecurity.

Competitors such as OpenAI, Microsoft, and Amazon Web Services have also prioritised national security partnerships. As AI becomes a key element of economic and geopolitical power, companies may feel compelled to follow Google’s lead to remain competitive.

The Road Ahead

Google insists that its revised principles will still prioritise responsible AI development and that it will assess projects based on whether the benefits outweigh the risks. However, critics remain sceptical.

“As AI development progresses, new capabilities may present new risks,” Google wrote in its 2024 Responsible AI Progress Report. The report outlines measures to mitigate these risks, including the implementation of a Frontier Safety Framework designed to prevent misuse of critical capabilities.

Despite these reassurances, concerns about AI’s potential to disrupt global stability remain. As Google moves forward, the world will be watching closely to see whether its actions match its rhetoric on responsibility and human rights.

What This Means For Your Business?

Google’s decision to revise its AI principles could be seen as a pivotal moment not only for the company but for the broader debate on the ethical use of AI. While Google argues that democratic nations must lead AI development to ensure security and uphold core values, the removal of explicit restrictions on military and surveillance applications raises serious ethical and practical concerns.

On the one hand, AI’s role in national security matters is undeniably growing, with governments around the world investing heavily in AI-driven defence and intelligence. Google, like its competitors, faces immense commercial and strategic pressure to remain at the forefront of this race. By lifting its self-imposed restrictions, the company is therefore positioning itself as a major player in AI applications for national security, an area where rivals such as Microsoft and Amazon have already established strong partnerships. Given the increasing intersection between technology and global power dynamics, Google’s shift could actually be seen as basically a pragmatic business decision.

However, this pragmatic approach comes with some risks. The concerns raised by human rights organisations, ethicists, and AI watchdogs highlight the potential consequences of allowing AI to shape military and surveillance operations.

Tech Insight : UK Employers Ramp Up Workplace Surveillance

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Workplace surveillance is becoming an inescapable reality for employees across the UK, with new research showing that 85 per cent of employers now monitor their staff’s online activity.

What’s Going On?

While businesses argue that these measures are essential for productivity and security, research indicates that employees are increasingly feeling the strain, leading to stress, distrust, and even resignations. So, just how widespread is workplace surveillance, what methods are being used, and what does it mean for the future of work?

The Scale of Workplace Surveillance

Workplace surveillance refers to the various ways employers track, record, and analyse their employees’ activities during work hours. While some monitoring practices, such as logging clock-in times, have been around for decades (going as far back as the nineteenth century), the digital era has significantly expanded what’s possible. Employers are now using sophisticated tools to track emails, internet usage, keystrokes, and even employees’ locations. In some cases, surveillance goes even further, with real-time screen monitoring and video surveillance becoming increasingly common.

The latest findings from an ExpressVPN survey have highlighted just how pervasive this practice has become. Their research shows that 85 per cent of UK employers admit to monitoring their staff in some way, with 54 per cent tracking active work hours, 36 per cent keeping an eye on website visits, and 27 per cent using software to observe employees’ screens in real-time. More intrusive measures, such as keystroke logging and location tracking, are also on the rise.

Employers Prefer In-Office Work

It appears that this shift has been accelerated by remote and hybrid work models which, since the pandemic years, have left many employers feeling out of control. The ExpressVPN study found that 72 per cent of employers prefer in-office work because it reduces the need for surveillance, while 51 per cent openly admit that they do not trust employees to work unsupervised.

Who’s Watching – Large Corporations or Small Businesses?

It seems that workplace surveillance isn’t just confined to large corporations and both small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are known to be engaging in these practices. However, larger firms tend to have more sophisticated monitoring tools and policies in place.

For example, tech giants such as Amazon have long been criticised for using surveillance technology to track warehouse workers and delivery drivers. Employees have reported feeling intense pressure due to constant monitoring, with some even being penalised for taking bathroom breaks. Similarly, financial institutions such as Barclays and PwC have been reported to track employees’ computer activity, logging how long they are active on their devices.

Also, companies like Microsoft have faced backlash over their “Productivity Score” tool, which was criticised for allowing managers to monitor individual workers’ performance at an almost microscopic level. In response to concerns about privacy, Microsoft eventually scaled back the tool’s capabilities, but the fact remains that workplace surveillance is no longer just about keeping track of attendance but is more about watching employees’ every digital move.

Why is Workplace Surveillance Increasing?

The rise of workplace surveillance is closely tied to the growing number of employees working remotely or in hybrid arrangements. Many businesses feel that without physical oversight, they cannot ensure that staff are working productively.

Employers also cite security concerns as a major reason for surveillance. With more employees accessing company data from home, businesses worry about sensitive information being leaked, stolen, or misused. Surveillance is seen as a way to safeguard against these risks, ensuring that employees are not engaging in unauthorised activities.

However, there is also a less talked-about reason behind the rise in monitoring, i.e. control. Many businesses simply feel uneasy about not being able to see what their staff are doing at all times. This has led to an increasing reliance on tracking tools to maintain a sense of authority, even when employees are working from home.

The Most Common Forms of Workplace Surveillance

Workplace monitoring can take many forms, ranging from relatively standard practices to highly invasive measures. The main forms highlighted by the ExpressVPN research include:

– Email and Chat Monitoring – 36 per cent of companies track employees’ emails, while 28 per cent monitor internal chat logs. This means that even private conversations between colleagues on work devices may not be as private as employees think.

– Keystroke Logging – 15 per cent of businesses record keystrokes, capturing exactly what employees type, including passwords and personal messages.

– Real-Time Screen Monitoring – More than a quarter (27 per cent) of employers actively view employees’ screens, allowing them to see what is being worked on in real time.

– Location Tracking – 21 per cent of businesses use GPS to monitor where employees are working from, raising concerns about whether staff members are being tracked outside of work hours.

The Ethical and Legal Debate

Workplace surveillance is actually a bit of a legal grey area in the UK. For example, although employers are permitted to monitor employees, there are rules about how they must go about it. The Data Protection Act 2018 and the European Convention on Human Rights provide some safeguards, stating that surveillance must be proportionate, transparent, and conducted for a legitimate business purpose.

However, many employees remain unaware of their rights. For example, ExpressVPN’s research found that 38 per cent of UK workers did not realise their employers were legally allowed to monitor their digital activity. Also, 79 per cent of Brits believe that workplace surveillance needs stricter government regulation to protect employee privacy.

The ethical concerns are even more pressing. Many employees feel that excessive monitoring creates a culture of distrust, reducing morale and increasing stress. If workers constantly feel watched, they are less likely to feel comfortable in their roles, which can lead to lower productivity and higher staff turnover.

How Workplace Surveillance Affects Employees

The impact of surveillance on employees is profound. Nearly half (46 per cent) of UK workers report feeling increased stress due to monitoring, with many saying they are constantly worried about how their actions might be perceived.

ExpressVPN’s research revealed that some employees have even altered their behaviour in response to surveillance. For example, 27 per cent say they take fewer breaks to avoid appearing unproductive.

It seems that workplace surveillance can also take its toll on employees mentally and emotionally. For example, according to the research:

– 23 per cent feel pressured to work longer hours.

– 32 per cent constantly wonder whether they are being watched.

– 14 per cent report feeling dehumanised by the extent of monitoring.

Young Employees Affected The Most

Young employees are particularly affected, with workers aged 18-24 feeling the highest levels of stress over being monitored.

Employees’ Reactions

As revealed by the survey, in response to surveillance, some employees have begun using creative, if questionable, tactics to avoid being flagged for inactivity. For example:

– 18 per cent admit to keeping unnecessary applications open to appear busy.

– 15 per cent schedule emails to send at certain times to give the impression of constant engagement.

– 11 per cent use ‘mouse jigglers’ or keyboard simulation software to avoid being marked as inactive.

These workarounds suggest that rather than boosting productivity, excessive surveillance may actually be encouraging employees to focus more on appearing busy rather than doing meaningful work.

It should be noted that employers are increasingly deploying advanced monitoring tools capable of detecting deceptive behaviours used by employees to get around surveillance. For example, companies like Wells Fargo have identified (and dismissed) employees for simulating keyboard activity to appear productive.

Is Workplace Surveillance Actually Effective?

Employers argue that monitoring increases productivity, but much of the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. While some studies indicate that limited monitoring can help prevent misconduct, excessive surveillance tends to have the opposite effect. Employees who feel watched are more likely to experience burnout, decreased engagement, and ultimately lower performance.

For example, a study by the Austrian research group Cracked Labs found that overly aggressive surveillance can lead to a toxic work environment, where employees feel like they are constantly being scrutinised. This, in turn, leads to lower morale and higher staff turnover, which can cost businesses more in the long run.

The Future of Workplace Surveillance

With AI and advanced analytics becoming more sophisticated, workplace monitoring is only set to expand. Some companies are already using AI-powered surveillance to track everything from facial expressions during video calls to time spent away from a keyboard.

However, the backlash is growing. Employees are increasingly demanding transparency and greater legal protection. If businesses fail to strike a balance between oversight and trust, they risk creating a workforce that feels resentful, stressed, and ultimately disengaged.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

While workplace surveillance is often justified by employers as a necessary tool for maintaining productivity and security, the reality may be more complex. The evidence suggests that while some level of monitoring may help prevent misconduct, excessive surveillance can backfire, leading to stress, disengagement, and resentment among employees. Instead of fostering a culture of productivity, it can create an environment of fear and mistrust, where workers are more focused on appearing active rather than doing meaningful work.

The increasing reliance on monitoring technology, particularly in remote and hybrid work settings, appears to reveal a fundamental lack of trust between employers and employees. This lack of trust, rather than improving performance, is more likely to damage morale and increase staff turnover. The findings from ExpressVPN’s research make it clear that many employees feel dehumanised and pressured under constant scrutiny, with younger workers being the most affected. When employees feel like they are being watched at every moment, the psychological toll can be significant, affecting their well-being and ultimately their performance.

While UK law does allow workplace monitoring for legitimate business purposes, the rules surrounding transparency and proportionality are not always strictly enforced. The fact that nearly four in ten employees are unaware of their rights in this regard suggests a concerning lack of clarity and communication. This is why there is growing demand for stronger regulations to ensure that workplace surveillance is conducted fairly and with clear boundaries.

For businesses, the challenge lies in striking the right balance. Employers should really weigh the benefits of monitoring against the potential negative consequences. Surveillance should ideally be used as a tool to support productivity, not as a mechanism of control that erodes trust and morale. Transparency is key. When employees understand why monitoring is in place, how data is being used, and what safeguards exist, they are more likely to accept it as a legitimate part of their working environment rather than as an invasive overreach.

The future of workplace surveillance is likely to be shaped by advancements in AI and monitoring technology, but also by the growing pushback from employees and privacy advocates. If businesses fail to recognise the risks of excessive surveillance, they may find themselves facing higher attrition rates, lower engagement, and potential legal challenges. The key takeaway from all of this is really that trust and productivity go hand in hand. If employers truly want a motivated and efficient workforce, they may wish to focus less on surveillance and more on creating a workplace culture built on transparency, fairness, and mutual respect.

Tech Insight : Cameras In Airbnb Properties – What Are The Rules?

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Following the Metro recently highlighting the issue of undisclosed cameras being used by a small number of Airbnb hosts, we take a look at what the rules say, reports in the news of this happening, and what you can do to protect yourself.

Do Airbnb Hosts Have The Right To Film Guests? 

You may be surprised to know that the answer to this question is yes, hosts do have the right to install surveillance devices in certain areas of their properties (which may result in guests being filmed) but this is heavily regulated and restricted for privacy reasons.

When/Where/Why/How Is It OK For Hosts To Film Guests? 

The primary legitimate reason for hosts to install surveillance devices is for security purposes. They are not allowed to use them for any invasive or unethical purposes. Airbnb’s community standards, for example, emphasise respect for the privacy of guests and any violation of these standards can lead to the removal of the host from the platform.

Clear Disclosure 

Airbnb’s company rules say that monitoring devices (e.g. cameras), may be used, but only if they are in common spaces (such as living rooms, hallways, and kitchens) and then only if Airbnb hosts disclose them in their listings. In short, if a host has any kind of surveillance device, they must clearly mention it in their house rules or property listing so that guests are made aware of these devices before they book the property.

What About Local Laws? 

It is also the case that although disclosed cameras in common spaces on a property may be OK by the company’s rules, Airbnb hosts must also adhere to local laws and regulations regarding surveillance. This can vary widely from place to place and, in some regions, recording audio without consent is illegal, whereas video might be permissible if disclosed.

Hidden Cameras 

Even though Airbnb rules are relatively clear, there appears to be anecdotal and news evidence that some Airbnb guests have discovered undisclosed surveillance devices in areas of Airbnb properties where they should not be installed. Examples that have made the news include:

– Back in 2019, it was reported that a couple staying for one night at an Airbnb property in Garden Grove, California discovered a camera hidden in a smoke detector directly above the bed.

– In July 2023, a Texas couple were widely reported to have filed a lawsuit against an Airbnb owner, claiming he had put up ‘hidden cameras’ in the Maryland property they had rented for 2 nights in August 2022. According to the Court documents of Kayelee Gates and Christian Capraro, the couple became suspicious after Capraro discovered multiple hidden cameras disguised as smoke detectors in the bedroom and bathroom.

– Last month, a man (calling himself Ian Timbrell) alleged in a post on X that he had found a camera tucked between two sofa cushions at his Aberystwyth Airbnb.

Wouldn’t It Be Better To Disallow Any Cameras Inside An Airbnb Rental Property? 

Banning all cameras at Airbnb rental properties might initially seem like a straightforward solution to privacy concerns, yet there are important factors to consider around this. Some hosts may legitimately need to use common areas such as entrances, for security purposes (perhaps the property is in an area where crime has been a problem) and they need to deter theft and vandalism and provide evidence if a crime occurs. On the other hand, a complete ban on cameras would address the privacy concerns of guests, ensuring they feel comfortable and secure during their stay.

Airbnb’s current policy attempts to balance security and privacy by allowing cameras in certain areas while requiring full disclosure and banning them in private spaces like bedrooms and bathrooms. However, enforcing a complete ban on cameras would be very challenging, as hidden cameras are, by nature, difficult to detect and even if there was a ban, some owners may simply not comply. The Airbnb model is built on trust between hosts and guests, and clear communication and transparency about security measures, including camera usage, are crucial for maintaining this trust. While a total ban on cameras might seem like a simple solution to privacy concerns, it overlooks the legitimate security needs of hosts. A balanced approach with clear guidelines and strict enforcement might be more effective in protecting both guest privacy and host security.

How To Check 

If you’re worried about possibly being filmed/recorded by hidden and undisclosed surveillance devices in a rented Airbnb property, here are some ways you can search the property and potentially reveal such devices:

– Inspect any gadgets. Check smoke detectors or alarm clocks as they are known as places to hide cameras. Examine any other tech that seems out of place. You may also want to check the shower head.

– Search for Lenses. For example, making sure the room is dark, use a torch (such as your phone’s torch) to spot reflective camera lenses in objects like decor or appliances.

– Use phone apps like Glint Finder for Android or Hidden Camera Detector for iOS to find hidden cameras.

– Check storage areas, e.g. examine drawers, vents, and any openings in walls/ceilings.

– Check mirrors. Many people worry about the two-way mirrors with cameras behind them. Ways to check include lifting any mirrors to see the wall behind, turning off the room light and then shining a torch into the mirror to see if an area behind is visible.

– Check for infrared lights (which can be used in movement-sensitive cameras). Again, this may be spotted by by using your phone’s camera in the dark, and then looking out for any small, purple, or pink lights that may be flashing or steady.

– Scan the property’s Wi-Fi network and smart home devices for unknown devices.

– Unplug the Airbnb property’s router. Stopping the Wi-Fi at source should disable surveillance devices and may reveal whether the owner is monitoring the property, e.g. it may prompt the host to ask about the router being unplugged.

– If you’re particularly concerned, buy and bring an RF signal detector with you. Widely available online, this is a device that can find any devices emitting Bluetooth or Wi-Fi signals, e.g. wireless surveillance cameras, tracking devices and power supplies.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The issue of undisclosed cameras in Airbnb properties raises important considerations for Airbnb as a company, its hosts, and travellers. For Airbnb, the challenge lies in upholding and enforcing privacy standards to maintain user trust. This could involve enhancing their policies, perhaps even investing in technology or an inspection process for better detection of undisclosed devices, and/or providing more reassuring information about the issue, thereby safeguarding guest security, ensuring host accountability, and helping to protect their brand reputation.

It should be said that most Airbnb hosts abide by the company’s rules but are caught in a delicate balancing act between providing security and respecting the privacy of their guests. Any misuse of surveillance devices can, of course, have serious legal consequences and potentially harm a host’s reputation and standing on the platform. However, even just a few stories in the news about the actions on one or two hosts can have a much wider negative effect on consumer trust in Airbnb and can be damaging for all hosts. It could even simply deter people from using the platform altogether.

For some travellers, this situation may make them feel they must proactively take the responsibility for their own privacy (which may not reflect so well on Airbnb). They may feel as though they need to be informed about their rights, familiarise themselves with detection methods and remain vigilant during their stays.

This whole scenario emphasises the need for a continuous update of policies and practices by Airbnb to keep pace with technological advancements and the varying legal frameworks in different regions. It also highlights the importance of clear communication and transparency between the company, its hosts, and guests to maintain a trustworthy and secure environment.