Essex Police have refused to confirm or deny whether any of their officers have met with representatives from Corsight AI, a controversial Israeli facial recognition technology company whose software has reportedly been used in IDF military operations in Gaza.
In a delayed response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), Essex Police cited Section 12(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that to determine whether any such meetings occurred would exceed cost and time limits. More concerningly, the force stated that it holds no central log of officer meetings and would have to conduct a force-wide internal search, an effort they deemed unfeasible.
Despite this refusal, the police confirmed that the supplier of their Live Facial Recognition (LFR) system is Digital Barriers, which in turn subcontracts the software element of the technology to Corsight UK — the British subsidiary of Corsight AI, based in Tel Aviv.
But in a reply from Essex Police, their press office told AOAV that “it is factually incorrect to state that we (Essex Police) are “doing business with an Israeli company””. The FOI refusal means it is impossible to establish whether Essex Police ever met with Corsight directly – with any meeting occurring undermining Essex Police’s claim of ‘not doing business’.
As Dr Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence, says: “If Essex Police cannot confirm whether any meetings with Corsight took place, how can their press office so confidently assert that no business was done directly with the company? Either Essex Police have oversight over these engagements and who they are meeting for business, or they don’t — and if they don’t, that raises concerns about transparency, procurement integrity, public accountability and making bold claims to the press that may not be wholly accurate.”
Corsight AI has come under scrutiny for its reported role in Israel’s surveillance of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Israeli military officials, speaking anonymously, have described the deployment of facial recognition systems to scan civilians at checkpoints, identify individuals from drone footage, and compile databases without consent — a practice that human rights organisations have condemned as constituting “automated apartheid”.
Both the denial and follow on lack of transparency from Essex Police regarding any engagement with Corsight raises further ethical questions about the accountability and oversight of police surveillance practices in the UK. The refusal to confirm meetings follows mounting concerns over the adoption of AI-driven tools developed or tested in regions accused of systematic rights violations.
The initial AOAV investigation revealed that Essex Police used facial recognition at events such as the Clacton Airshow and Southend seafront in 2024, leading to several arrests. Assistant Chief Constable Andy Pritchard defended the use of the technology at the time as “forward-thinking”, and the Home Office has signalled its support for further expansion of police surveillance capabilities.
Some critics argue that the ethical cost is too high.
“Public trust in policing risks being eroded if UK forces rely on surveillance tools linked to oppressive regimes,” says Overton. “The force’s inability or unwillingness to be transparent only fuels those fears.”
The FOI refusal sits uncomfortably alongside the Information Commissioner’s Office’s 2022 warning that facial recognition tools, particularly those developed with limited oversight, risk bias, misuse, and discrimination. A December 2024 report by Big Brother Watch found seven police forces in England and Wales were using live facial recognition, but little is known about the provenance of their technologies.
As Essex Police continue to deploy AI-based surveillance tools, public and parliamentary scrutiny will likely intensify — especially when transparency is withheld.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate