Safety or Surveillance? The Use of Facial Recognition in Shops to Help Fight Crime

Is the price of safety the end of anonymity?

UK retail is fighting back against rising crime with Facial Recognition technology like Facewatch.  But this powerful tool comes with a massive ethical and legal question mark.

In this episode of the Inspiring Tech Leaders podcast, I look at the undeniable success in tackling repeat offenders and boosting staff safety.  But also, explore the serious risks of false positives, GDPR compliance, and the erosion of public privacy.

It's not about choosing sides, it's about choosing standards.  How do we govern biometric surveillance responsibly?  Listen to this podcast to hear more thoughts on this topic.

Available on: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | All major podcast platforms

Start building your thought leadership portfolio today with INSPO.  Wherever you are in your professional journey, whether you're just starting out or well established, you have knowledge, experience, and perspectives worth sharing. Showcase your thinking, connect through ideas, and make your voice part of something bigger at INSPO - https://www.inspo.expert/

Everyday AI: Your daily guide to grown with Generative AI
Can't keep up with AI? We've got you. Everyday AI helps you keep up and get ahead.

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction
• 1:20 What is Facewatch and how is it being used?
• 2:27 The Positive Impact of Technology
• 4:38 The Concerns about the use of the Technology
• 5:52 [Ad] Everyday AI: Your daily guide to grown with Generative AI
• 6:40 (Cont.) The Concerns about the use of the Technology
• 11:06 What does the Future hold for this Technology?
• 13:03 Wrap Up

Transcript

Welcome to the Inspiring Tech Leaders podcast, with me Dave Roberts.  This is the podcast that talks with tech leaders from across the industry, exploring their insights, sharing their experiences, and offering valuable advice to technology professionals.  The podcast also explores technology innovations and the evolving tech landscape, providing listeners with actionable guidance and inspiration.

It’s that time of year when the shops are busier than ever, but this also means shoplifting crimes are at their highest too.  With the High Street already fighting for survival over online retail, it’s important they are not also the victims of criminal behaviour.

In today’s episode I’m discussing facial recognition technology that has become one of the most debated tools in modern crime prevention, particularly in the UK retail sector. At the centre of this conversation sits Facewatch, a platform used by thousands of retailers to identify, prevent, and respond to repeat offenders. Supporters argue it is a vital defence against rising retail crime, while critics warn it risks normalising surveillance, undermining privacy, and creating legal and ethical grey areas. I want explore Facewatch in depth, not as a headline-grabbing controversy, but as a practical system operating in real UK environments and looking carefully at both the benefits and the risks.

To understand Facewatch properly, we need to start with the context. Retail crime in the UK has increased significantly over the past decade, driven by organised shoplifting, repeat offenders, and in some cases violent behaviour towards staff. Many retailers feel traditional approaches, such as CCTV, security guards, and police reporting, are no longer sufficient or timely. Facewatch positions itself as a response to this gap, offering a shared intelligence network that allows businesses to identify known offenders and prevent incidents before they escalate.

At its core, Facewatch is not just facial recognition software. It is a business crime reduction platform that allows retailers to upload images of individuals involved in offences, share incident data with other members, and receive alerts when known offenders enter their premises. Facial recognition can be enabled as part of this system, typically using CCTV cameras to match faces against a watchlist. Facewatch emphasises that its technology is designed to operate within UK data protection laws, including GDPR and the Data Protection Act.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of Facewatch is its effectiveness in tackling repeat offenders. Retail crime is often committed by a relatively small number of individuals who target multiple stores in the same area. Traditional CCTV may record incidents, but it does little to stop someone from walking straight into the next shop. Facewatch allows retailers to recognise individuals proactively, giving staff the opportunity to deny entry, monitor behaviour closely, or take preventative action.

From a business perspective, this can be transformative. Retailers report reductions in theft, abuse, and violence after adopting Facewatch, particularly in high-risk locations such as city centres and transport hubs. For independent retailers, who often lack the resources for full-time security teams, the platform can act as a force multiplier, providing shared intelligence that would otherwise be inaccessible.

Another significant benefit is staff safety. Retail workers increasingly report verbal abuse, threats, and physical assaults. Knowing that offenders can be identified and tracked across multiple locations can act as a deterrent. In some cases, Facewatch alerts allow staff to prepare mentally and operationally when a known violent individual enters the premises. This can reduce panic, improve response times, and potentially prevent harm.

There is also a psychological element worth acknowledging. Retail staff often feel powerless when dealing with repeat offenders who face few immediate consequences. A system that visibly supports them, records incidents, and demonstrates action can improve morale and confidence. In industries struggling with retention and burnout, this should not be dismissed lightly.

From a policing and community perspective, Facewatch can also support investigations. Retailers can provide clearer evidence, consistent offender profiles, and documented patterns of behaviour. While Facewatch is not a law enforcement agency, its data can complement police work, particularly in areas where resources are stretched. Some Business Improvement Districts and local partnerships see Facewatch as part of a broader crime prevention ecosystem.

However, these advantages come with serious and legitimate concerns. The most prominent criticism of Facewatch relates to privacy and surveillance. Facial recognition technology, by its nature, involves biometric data, which is one of the most sensitive categories of personal information under UK law. Critics argue that widespread use in everyday spaces, such as shops, risks eroding the expectation of anonymity in public life.

Unlike targeted policing operations, Facewatch operates in semi-public commercial environments where individuals may not reasonably expect to be scanned and analysed. Even with signage and transparency measures, many people remain unaware that facial recognition is being used. This raises questions about informed consent and whether customers truly understand how their data may be processed.

There are also concerns about proportionality. Is facial recognition justified to prevent shoplifting or anti-social behaviour? Privacy advocates argue that such measures should be reserved for serious crimes or high-risk environments, not routine retail activity. The fear is that once normalised, the threshold for deploying biometric surveillance will continue to lower.

Another critical issue is accuracy and bias. Facial recognition systems have historically struggled with accuracy across different demographics, particularly women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. While Facewatch states that its technology is continually tested and improved, the risk of false positives remains. A mistaken identification can have serious consequences, including embarrassment, discrimination, or wrongful exclusion from a business.

For retailers, a false match is not just a technical error, it is a human interaction. If staff act on incorrect information, the reputation damage can be significant. Customers who feel unfairly targeted may share their experiences publicly, leading to backlash, complaints, or legal action. In an era of social media and heightened sensitivity to surveillance issues, a single incident can escalate quickly.

Legal compliance is another area of complexity. Facewatch users are responsible for ensuring that their use of the platform complies with GDPR, including conducting Data Protection Impact Assessments, having a lawful basis for processing biometric data, and implementing strict retention and access controls. For large retailers with legal teams, this may be manageable. For smaller businesses, the compliance burden can be daunting.

There is also ongoing debate about whether consent or legitimate interest is the appropriate lawful basis for facial recognition in retail settings. Regulators have made it clear that biometric data requires particularly strong justification. Failure to meet these standards can result in regulatory scrutiny, fines, or enforcement action. For some retailers, the legal risk may outweigh the operational benefits.

Transparency is another challenge. While Facewatch provides guidance on signage and customer communication, critics argue that transparency alone does not equal fairness. Just because a customer is informed that facial recognition is in use does not mean they have a genuine choice, especially if avoiding such systems would require avoiding large parts of the high street altogether.

Ethically, there is also the question of who gets placed on a watchlist. Facewatch relies on retailers uploading images of individuals involved in incidents. While there are processes for review and removal, the system depends heavily on accurate reporting and responsible use. There is a risk, be it perceived or real, that individuals could be labelled unfairly, particularly in cases involving misunderstandings, minor incidents, or unconscious bias.

Another criticism is function creep. A system introduced to prevent theft could, over time, be used for broader behavioural monitoring, profiling, or exclusion. Even if Facewatch itself maintains strict policies, the wider concern is about setting precedents. Once facial recognition infrastructure is in place, expanding its use becomes technically easy, even if ethically questionable.

Public trust is perhaps the most fragile element in this debate. Trust in retailers, technology providers, and institutions is already under strain. High-profile controversies around data misuse have made consumers more sceptical. If facial recognition is perceived as secretive, heavy-handed, or profit-driven, it risks undermining customer relationships.

That said, it’s important to avoid oversimplification. The debate around Facewatch is not a simple choice between safety and privacy. It is about balance, governance, and accountability. Many of the risks associated with Facewatch are not inherent to the technology itself, but to how it is implemented, managed, and overseen.

Some retailers have demonstrated that responsible use is possible. This includes limiting watchlists to serious repeat offenders, ensuring human verification before any action is taken, regularly reviewing and deleting data, and engaging openly with staff and customers. When facial recognition is one tool among many, rather than a default solution, its impact can be more proportionate.

There is also a wider policy question about the role of the state versus private organisations in crime prevention. Retailers often turn to tools like Facewatch because they feel unsupported by public services. If policing resources were more readily available, the pressure to adopt controversial technologies might be reduced. In this sense, Facewatch is as much a symptom of systemic issues as it is a solution.

Looking ahead, the future of Facewatch in the UK will likely depend on regulation, public opinion, and legal clarity. Regulators are paying closer attention to biometric technologies, and future guidance or legislation could significantly reshape how systems like Facewatch operate. Court cases and enforcement actions will also help define what is acceptable in practice, not just in theory.

For retailers considering Facewatch, the decision should not be taken lightly. It requires investment not just in technology, but in training, governance, and ethical decision-making. It also requires a willingness to listen to staff, customers, regulators, and critics. The most successful implementations will be those that treat facial recognition as a responsibility, not a shortcut.

For consumers, the debate raises important questions about the kind of society we want to live in. How much surveillance are we willing to accept in exchange for safety and convenience? Who controls our data, and how can we hold them accountable? These are not questions with easy answers, but they are conversations worth having openly.

So, Facewatch represents both promise and peril. It offers a practical response to real challenges facing UK retailers, particularly around repeat offending and staff safety. At the same time, it raises profound concerns about privacy, fairness, and the normalisation of biometric surveillance. Whether Facewatch becomes a widely accepted tool or a cautionary tale will depend less on the technology itself, and more on how thoughtfully, or carelessly, it is used.

As with many emerging technologies, the challenge is not choosing sides, but choosing standards. Standards of transparency, proportionality, accountability, and respect for individual rights. If those standards are met, systems like Facewatch may find a legitimate place in the retail landscape. If they are not, the backlash may ultimately outweigh the benefits.

Well, that is all for today. Thanks for tuning in to the Inspiring Tech Leaders podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your network.  You can find more insights, show notes, and resources at www.inspiringtechleaders.com

Head over to the social media channels, you can find Inspiring Tech Leaders on X, Instagram, INSPO and TikTok.  Let me know your thoughts on facial recognition technology for helping crime prevention in retail.

Thanks for listening, and until next time, stay curious, stay connected, and keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible in tech.