‘We use it’: Canberra police haven’t assessed privacy impact of controversial ‘crime intelligence’ software

Canberra’s top cop has admitted his force has not carried out a privacy assessment for their use of Auror, a controversial “crime intelligence platform” that was the subject of a Crikey investigation.  

On Thursday, ACT Policing Chief Police Officer Neil Gaughan defended the force’s use of Auror in response to a line of questioning by Greens Senator David Shoebridge at a Senate estimates hearing for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. 

Auror is a software platform that promises to help fight retail crime by allowing users to share information with each other and police about alleged incidents. The software, which can ingest CCTV footage, automatic licence number plate reader inputs and other data, can alert users when people or cars enter their stores. The company, also called Auror, claims that 40% of Australian retailers, as well as a number of Australian police forces, use the software.

During the exchange, Gaughan told the committee that ACT Policing used the technology for recidivist crime offending but had never completed a privacy impact statement, a common type of privacy assessment by government bodies used to understand and mitigate potential risks. Nor had ACT Policing approached the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner for advice about its use.

“We treat it in the same way we treat ingestion of a large number of CCTV capabilities across the territory,” he said.

Gaughan said that ACT Policing’s privacy staff had cleared the use of the technology and that Auror was used by “most police forces on the east coast, as well as the New Zealand Police force”.

Shoebridge compared Auror to Clearview AI, a controversial facial-recognition technology used by police that was found to have breached Australia’s privacy rules. Gaughan rejected the comparison.

“You made the same arguments about Clearview,” Shoebridge said.

“My view is that it’s a different argument … We use it as an investigative tool, we don’t alter imagery, we seek the identity of persons. And, of course, being a small territory, there’s a trusted relationship between ourselves and retailers and ourselves and the community,” Gaughan replied. 

Edward Santow, professor of responsible technology at the University of Technology Sydney and a former human rights commissioner, said that he didn’t think Auror should be used until its impact on privacy had been considered.

“Police need to have clear legal guardrails that say when they can use powerful technology like this, and when they can’t … We have had a system of warrants throughout Australia … for as literally as long as we have had police, so you can’t be surveilled 24/7 when you haven’t done anything wrong,” he told ABC Radio Canberra’s Breakfast program with Adam Shirley on Friday morning.

Santow spoke about how Auror had been misused by New Zealand Police in the past.

“[New Zealand Police] were going around their warrant system, pretending they had committed crimes, to watch them … all of the time. Unless we have this clarified about what the rules are, how the [Australian Federal Police] is using this technology, it’s a huge risk.”

Update: This article has been updated to remove ambiguity from a quoted individual.