Most sources suggest that Britain, in terms of CCTV cameras and coverage per head in cities, is one of the most surveilled nations in the world, albeit coming some way behind China, where it seems to be even more routine.

       The trend towards “snooping” on British folk seems to be accelerating. More live facial recognition vans are to be deployed across seven police forces in England in a mass-surveillance trial. The aim is to identify and locate suspects in some of the crimes that most worry the public, such as sexual offences, violent assaults and murder. Ticket touts are also targets.

       Crime is a major concern among voters, but so are their civil liberties...

       How will it work?

       Quite passively, as has been the case for some years. Just like in films, the police can place vans in crowded places such as high streets and automatically scan the faces of people walking past, checking them against a databank of images of wanted people. If it relies on busy officers spooling through hours of footage, it might not always be worth the effort; they have enough trouble at present trying to find shoplifters.

       Recommended

       What is causing the UK jobs gloom and how will voters respond?How would Trump-Putin talks compare to other historic summits?

       Does it work?

       Yes. There have been many successes over the years, though it obviously works best in the big cities, where it operates like a fishing boat trawling for a catch. Ministers say that in London over the past year, facial recognition technology has helped to secure 580 arrests, including the detention of 52 registered sex offenders who breached their conditions.

       At a time of shrivelled police budgets, a shortage of officers and concerns about “lawless Britain” (it isn’t, by the way), facial recognition harnessed to AI could transform police productivity – and cut crime. It could quite conceivably lower the risk of mass murder through terrorism, for example, which tends to take place in urban centres.

       Win-win?

       Not quite. There are practical problems. The software can make mistakes, leading to embarrassment for innocent parties. Twins don’t like it, for obvious reasons. The system can’t work if people change their appearance or wear a face-covering, and if villains steer clear of the big cities. People wearing face-coverings for religious or health reasons could be stigmatised as “camera dodgers”.

       What about the human right to a private life?

       Quite. One glaring issue is that there is no legislation covering this area of police work, and no national debate has taken place about the creeping ubiquity of various types of surveillance – online as well as on the streets. Parliament does need to create some kind of framework, and one that is consistent with existing laws and international commitments on human rights.

       So are we becoming a ‘big brother’ society?

       With 5 million CCTV cameras, plus an unknown number in offices, plus dashcams in cars and doorbell cameras, the British can hardly cough without it being captured in high definition. Civil liberties groups claim that the UK is becoming a “big brother society”, a “surveillance state” where privacy is at risk.

       There’s certainly the possibility of a “Coldplay moment”, where someone having an affair is caught on camera and the evidence finds its way into the public domain. Former health secretary Matt Hancock springs to mind. Plenty more risks like that...

       What does the government say?

       Dame Diana Johnson, the minister responsible, pleads that it is “a powerful tool for policing” and will only be used in “a very measured, proportionate way” to find individuals suspected of serious offences.

       But there’s dissent. Shami Chakrabarti, who served as shadow attorney general under Jeremy Corbyn, says the technology is “incredibly intrusive”, remarking: “Some would say this is yet another move towards a total surveillance society.” Some would indeed.

       And the opposition?

       Well, the present shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, in his role as a Home Office minister a few years ago, oversaw a substantial increase in CCTV use. In October 2023, for example, he suggested that police force leaders in England and Wales should aim to exceed 200,000 searches of still images against the police national database.

       Predictably, Nigel Farage, despite his summer crime campaign (to clarify, a campaign against crime), simply declared that he “doesn’t want to live in China”.

       Recommended

       What are the pros and cons of introducing digital identity cards?Why has Kemi Badenoch fallen out with Liz Truss?

       Will it happen?

       Yes. We haven’t got enough coppers, or money, to avoid it and also cut crime.