Facial recognition in policing: Part one

How the US and UK are moving in different directions

At Altia, we work closely with law enforcement agencies across North America and internationally. That gives us a front row view of how different regions are approaching technology in policing, especially when it comes to facial recognition. Recent developments highlight just how far those approaches can diverge.

In the UK, government strategy is actively encouraging police forces to adopt live facial recognition (LFR) in a coordinated, standards-driven way. In the US, federal agencies continue to expand their use of biometric technologies, but this is happening against a backdrop of intense public scrutiny, state-level regulations, and local bans.

These contrasting approaches reveal two distinct philosophies that are shaping the future of policing technology.

Technology, two mindsets

Facial recognition technology (FRT) has moved rapidly into operational policing, supporting investigations, identifying suspects, and helping protect the public at major events.

While the underlying technology is global, attitudes toward its use are not. Both the US and the UK face similar challenges, including balancing public safety, civil liberties, and trust. However, each region has chosen a different path. Those choices reflect legal frameworks, governance structures, and public expectations unique to each country.

For police agencies and technology providers, these distinctions matter. The way facial recognition is regulated influences operational effectiveness and the public’s confidence in its use.

The US landscape: Decentralized governance and rights first scrutiny

The United States has no single federal strategy governing facial recognition in policing. Instead, oversight varies widely across federal, state, county, and city levels.

Federal agencies, including the FBI and DHS, continue to expand biometric programs. At the same time, local jurisdictions make their own decisions, which has created a patchwork of regulations. Some cities and states have implemented complete bans. Others allow use only under tightly controlled conditions. Many jurisdictions require warrants, audits, or restrictions on applications.

This environment reflects long standing concerns about privacy, constitutional protections under the First and Fourth Amendments, and the risk of biased or inappropriate deployment. As a result, facial recognition in the US is often treated as a high-risk tool that must be continually justified, rather than a routine investigative resource.

The UK model: Centralized standards and structured oversight

The UK has positioned facial recognition as a legitimate policing capability, as long as it is used responsibly, transparently, and proportionately. National policy frames LFR as a targeted tool rather than a mass surveillance mechanism.

Guidance from the Home Office, combined with national technical standards and oversight, supports coordinated deployment across police forces. Court rulings and regulatory expectations reinforce requirements around necessity, proportionality, data protection, human decision making, and clear public communication.

UK deployments often focus on preventing serious crime, locating individuals wanted for high-risk offences, or identifying vulnerable people. This reflects the UK’s long-standing principle of policing by consent, where legitimacy depends on transparency and public trust.

Shared ethical questions across borders

Despite regulatory differences, the ethical questions are strikingly similar in both regions. Concerns about algorithmic bias, privacy, transparency, and the risk of over reliance on automated systems remain central.

At the same time, the benefits of responsible use are clear. Facial recognition can accelerate investigations, strengthen public safety responses, and deliver analytical capabilities that would otherwise be impossible.

Trust depends on implementation. Public engagement, transparent policies, and strong human oversight are essential for maintaining legitimacy.

Altia’s approach to AI in policing

At Altia, our philosophy is straightforward. Technology should enhance human judgement, not replace it. Tools only deliver meaningful value when they are transparent, proportionate, and built with a deep understanding of their operational and social impact.

We focus on disciplined innovation that is grounded in real world use cases. This includes understanding failure modes, ensuring investigators remain in control, and designing systems that support human authority rather than automate it away.

Our approach emphasizes fairness, robustness, oversight, and strong privacy boundaries. Above all, our tools are built to be explainable, accountable, and aligned with the expectations placed on modern policing professionals.

Responsibility above all

The US and the UK may be taking different paths, but responsibility remains the shared foundation. Facial recognition is more than a technical capability. It raises important questions about accountability, trust, and the appropriate use of power in the digital age.

For law enforcement agencies and technology partners, success is measured not by how quickly a tool is deployed but by how responsibly and transparently it is governed.

That is why Altia does not chase hype. We build technologies that earn their place and genuinely support the people who rely on them.

Key differences at a glance: