spinofflive
A surveillance camera at a metro station in Moscow, where facial recognition cameras are being used to show the spread of Covid-19 (Photo: Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV / AFP)
A surveillance camera at a metro station in Moscow, where facial recognition cameras are being used to show the spread of Covid-19 (Photo: Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV / AFP)

SocietyAugust 25, 2020

Facial recognition technology is here. New Zealand’s law is nowhere near ready

A surveillance camera at a metro station in Moscow, where facial recognition cameras are being used to show the spread of Covid-19 (Photo: Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV / AFP)
A surveillance camera at a metro station in Moscow, where facial recognition cameras are being used to show the spread of Covid-19 (Photo: Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV / AFP)

Without a strong legal and ethical framework and clear policy for use, FRT can have grave implications for individual and collective rights, writes Nessa Lynch.

Automated facial recognition technology, which involves the use of an algorithm to match a facial image to one already stored in a system, is used in automated passport control and other border control measures, as a biometric identifier in the banking, security and access contexts, and on social media platforms and various other consent-based applications.

The use of FRT in policing is controversial worldwide. Unlike other biometric indicators used in policing, such as DNA and fingerprints, automated collection and matching of facial images is generally not covered by legislation. Facial images may be collected at a distance, without the person’s consent or even their knowledge. Yet, there is a spectrum of impact on individual and collective rights, from simple identity matching with a person who is arrested, up to live collection and matching of images by means of FRT-equipped camera surveillance systems. It matters also whether image matching is with existing police databases or watchlists, other state databases, private sector supplied image databases, or open source data. As my research collaborators have found, the use of live automated FRT in public places has significant implications for privacy rights as well as concerns around a chilling effect on rights to freedom of expression and lawful protest.

While we have no evidence that FRT is in current widespread use in the policing context in New Zealand, the police are known to have tendered for an updated FRT system and to have carried out a small-scale trial of a controversial system known as Clearview earlier in the year. FRT is known to be used more widely in this country by other public agencies such as Immigration NZ and the Department of Internal Affairs, and in the private sector.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales illustrates the risks where the technology is trialled without having an appropriate legal and ethical framework in place.

The appellant, Mr Bridges, is a resident of Cardiff, in Wales. He was scanned by FRT, which had been (overtly) deployed by South Wales Police on a public street in Cardiff city centre, and on another occasion at a protest at a defence exhibition. The system used is named “AFR Locate” and operates by capturing facial images from a CCTV camera and automatically comparing biometric data from the images with images derived from a “watchlist”. A police camera operator may then review any matches, before making a decision on further actions or interventions.

Bridges took a case against South Wales Police alleging his right to respect for private life had been infringed and that the use of the technology breached data protection and equality legislation. A divisional court found that the right to private life was engaged but that the use of FRT was lawful and proportionate in the circumstances.

Bridges appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court held unanimously that the interference with Bridges’ privacy was unlawful because there were no clear guidelines on parameters of use, meaning that police had too wide a discretion.  However, the Court did find that the use was proportionate, meaning that the impact on Bridges was minor while the benefits (presumably crime control and public safety) were significant. It was also found that South Wales Police did not undertake a proper data protection assessment and had also failed to assess whether the system could be biased.

While the court noted that automated FRT involved a much higher level of intrusion than the police taking photos or using CCTV in public places, it declined to say that specific legislative authorisation was required, unlike DNA or fingerprints. Thus, although campaigners have called for a ban on use, police forces around the United Kingdom are now refining policy and guidance on the use of the technology to take account of the decision.

As to the implications for New Zealand, police here have indicated that after the criticised trial of Clearview, they are undertaking a review of surveillance technologies to ensure privacy implications are properly considered. While adherence to the privacy regime is necessary and welcome, there remains concerns about the lack of a wider legal and regulatory framework for the use of FRT and other surveillance technologies, as well as a clear policy for use. It is worth remembering that Bridges was able to take his action on the basis of alleged breaches of rights-protecting statutes that do not have direct equivalence in this jurisdiction.

New Zealand does now have what is said to be the world’s first Algorithm Charter, which sets principles for public sector agencies using algorithms for the basis of, or to guide, decision-making. Not all agencies (including, at time of writing, the police) have signed up to the charter. This is a voluntary set of guidelines, and the means by which an individual can query improper use and seek redress is unclear. It may also be noted that the government chief data steward has convened an independent group that is available to assist public sector agencies with data ethics issues, particularly relating to algorithms. (I am a member of this group, but the views expressed here are my own.)

Finally, our research group will report our findings on lawful and ethical use of FRT later in the year. With a report from the Law Commission on the use of DNA in criminal investigations also expected, it may be an appropriate time for reflection on the wider framework for the use of biometrics in policing in the particular societal and cultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Nessa Lynch is an associate professor at the Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, and is currently leading a research project on facial recognition technology

Keep going!
A quick search of TradeMe show rentals in South Auckland are disproportionately high. (Photo: Supplied)
A quick search of TradeMe show rentals in South Auckland are disproportionately high. (Photo: Supplied)

SocietyAugust 25, 2020

Spot the difference: Why are South Auckland rents so high?

A quick search of TradeMe show rentals in South Auckland are disproportionately high. (Photo: Supplied)
A quick search of TradeMe show rentals in South Auckland are disproportionately high. (Photo: Supplied)

The region is known to lack many of the advantages of central and north Auckland suburbs, yet properties command rents as high as the likes of Mt Albert and Ōnehunga. So how do landlords get away with charging so much, Justin Latif asks.

If you write the words “is South Auckland” into Google, the first three search options are “is South Auckland safe”, “is South Auckland dangerous” and “is South Auckland a ghetto”.

But you would have to pay me to live anywhere else in this sprawling mess of a city. Nothing beats the south’s vibrancy, warmth or inspiring resilience. 

Despite South Auckland’s besmirched reputation, deserved or not, one aspect where it does roughly match the rest of the city is, surprisingly, in rent price. 

The median weekly rent for a two-bedroom house in Mt Albert is $515, in Glenfield it’s $500 and in Onehunga it’s $500; while in Māngere Bridge it’s $550, in Ōtara it’s $505 and in Manurewa it’s $480. While I’m sure all these areas have their share of cold, damp rentals, what marks out these suburbs north of the Manukau Harbour is their proximity to good public transport, more quality recreational amenities, less violent crime, a hospital not known for poo running down the walls, and mid to high decile schools. 

My own renting experiences in South Auckland have been mixed. The best house was a lovely two-storey townhouse, which had kind of a Spanish stucco villa vibe. The rent was in the high $500s, if I recall correctly, and apart from a suspected murder happening next door, and a few dodgy winos wandering past, it was actually a really nice, quiet neighbourhood. The worst one I saw was for a viewing. It was a cold, dark, carpetless former state house, with maggots crawling up the walls of the kitchen and rat shit throughout the lounge. A real “fixer-upper” for roughly $450 a week. 

So why, when the region is known to lack many of the advantages of central and north Auckland suburbs, is our rent so high? 

Dave Tims is concerned about the impact of high rents on his community (Photo: Supplied)

Dave Tims is a pastor and community worker and he’s called Randwick Park, neighbouring Manurewa, home for the last 10 years. He moved into the area a few years after a brutal shooting at a liquor store, and while there’s been a noticeable drop in crime, it’s still an area of many challenges. It has a median income of $22,600, the primary occupation in the area is labourer and the local schools are either decile one or two. 

He says there have been a number of houses on his street recently advertised in the mid to high $500s, and the most recent was just next door. 

“It’s a two-bedroom home, 66 square metres for $500 plus a week,” he says.

“We are not the flashiest street in Auckland. Our houses are poorly built and it’s an area known for its poverty, yet the landlords are charging huge amounts. But what’s surprised me most is that it’s just been one person after another, after another, coming to view it. People of all cultures and backgrounds, so it looks like there’s a real demand.”

Tims says the worst part is seeing longtime residents move out of the area. 

“I had a neighbour whose landlord sold their house, but they really wanted to stay – because it’s such a well-connected street,” he says.

“Our street has its own Facebook page, we do street barbecues and everyone knows each other. So he checked out this other place for rent and there was just no way he could afford it.

“As far as I know, people are either moving up north or down to Huntly. Usually gentrification happens from the CBD and goes out. But we’re in Manurewa, we’re already on the edge, so what’s next? Gentrification has basically happened to the whole of Auckland and there isn’t anywhere else to go, unless you’re prepared to move out of the city.”

Auckland Action Against Poverty (AAAP) co-ordinator Ricardo Menendez works with many families facing eviction or struggling to pay their rent. 

He feels gentrification is starting to happen in South Auckland at a scale not seen since the days when Pacific families were forced out of Ponsonby and Grey Lynn.

“We’re essentially seeing state-led gentrification, especially in places like Māngere, where a lot of development is happening,” he says.

“These developments have a history of driving house prices and rents up and Māngere has one of the biggest mixed tenure developments in the whole of the country, and the end result of this development will be an increase in rent prices.”

Menendez says if people can’t access financial support or increase the number of breadwinners in the home, they are just moving further south. 

“These communities were already pushed out of Ponsonby and other areas, and now they are basically reliving this displacement and moving to places like Pukekohe, which for them is a whole different community.”

He says another element driving the high rents in these low-income areas is the subsidies provided through Work and Income. 

“The accommodation supplement plays into it. It’s effectively a subsidy for landlords. From an AAAP perspective, our position is that to stop the reliance on the accommodation supplement, there needs to be a focus on building more public housing. The other option is to focus on lifting core benefits, as opposed to relying on supplements.”

Joanne Narayan has worked extensively in the property industry over the last 14 years, including nine years as a residential property manager in Manurewa, Clendon and Papakura. 

She’s seen first-hand how landlords have been able to raise rents, despite their tenants being on really low incomes. 

“Basically, the way I see it is a lot of people are able to access social welfare,” she says. “What I would see is if a landlord puts the rent up, the tenant would take the rent increase letter to WINZ and they would get topped up.”

Narayan says she would often ask tenants why they didn’t try to buy a house given they were able to pay such high rents. 

“Given the type of housing in places like Clendon and Manurewa, the rent is definitely not worth it, and I would sometimes say to the tenants, ‘If you’re paying $600 in rent, you should be looking at buying something’, but they weren’t going to be able to get a mortgage. And families grew up in these areas, so they wanted to stay there.”

There are a range of factors driving high rents in South Auckland, according to CPAG (Photo: Getty Images)

Child Poverty Action Group has provided extensive analysis over the years into what’s driving our housing issues, and most recently undertook an in-depth piece of research into the accommodation supplement

CPAG’s housing spokesperson Frank Hogan says a number factors are driving the high rents in South Auckland. He says the government is decreasing the supply of private rentals by leasing large numbers of rentals for those on the social housing waiting list. He also believes there is less demand in other parts of Auckland for rentals, while in South Auckland demand is higher because families tend to be larger, so are able to pay bigger rents. 

“The [main] reasons are fewer houses for the people needing them, plus overcrowding, plus crowding out by the government spending on leasing private rental housing,” Hogan says. 

“It’s a vicious cycle that favours landlords over children and their whānau, a vicious cycle that successive governments have upheld with tax breaks for property investors. 

“High rents increase overcrowding, which maintains high rents. High rents help increase social housing lists which are managed in a way which increases rents even further.”

However, Narayan does believe the recent tenancy law changes could lead to a number of property investors getting out of the market.

“The changes are good, because there’s now a disincentive for those who don’t comply,” she says. “It will be a lot harder for landlords, as they will feel like they have no control of their investment. 

“The only reason you would have a rental now is that you want a long-term capital gain or something for your children, but for the smaller mum and dad investor, you’d have to think twice.”

Minister for Pacific Peoples and Māngere electorate MP Aupito William Sio says the passing of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is just one of a number of measures his government has taken to address this issue, particularly for Māori and Pacific communities that make up a large proportion of South Auckland’s population.

“Part of the changes introduced include banning landlords from seeking rental bids and limiting rental increases to once every 12 months,” he says.

“When we came into government in late 2017, we started focusing on the housing development of Māngere as a priority… [for] building 10,000 new houses over a 10-15 year period. So I would be really keen to see the evidence that the Kāinga Ora developments are raising rents… and keen to have people raise those concerns with my office so I can follow up on it.”

He also highlights the $400 million Progressive Home Ownership Fund as a key initiative to help those on low to medium income, particularly Māori and Pacific families, into home ownership.

“As a government, we are making progress with housing affordability, we are committing to investing in housing and working hard on delivering solutions to enable more families to own their own homes and secure their futures.”

One Manurewa-based property investor Luella Linaker believes the responsibility to keep rents affordable also falls to those like herself, to take a more ethical approach.

“When we go to homes around Manurewa to look at homes, what we really want to do is find homes that our friends could live in, so they have a place that’s safe to live in for them and their kids, that’s warm and affordable,” she says. 

“For me the ethical approach, is to have as much commitment to the people you are housing, as the property.”

Justin Latif previously worked as communications adviser for the Child Action Poverty Group