Well, would you look at that. There we were, in 2020, worrying about people who didn’t wear face masks; now here we are, in 2026, worrying about people who do wear face masks. As usual, there have been calls to do something! make a law! ban people like them! but not people like us! The police have also weighed into the debate, which isn’t always a good sign. But given the tense and anxious times we live in, a potential ban on masks may be one more thing, to add to all the other things, that we should be worrying about.
There’s a reason Scottish police officers are raising the subject now: live facial recognition technology or LFR, which compares live camera footage against a database of faces. It can be used to control entry to secure buildings, but some police forces in England and Wales are already using it to scan public spaces for suspects or missing persons or individuals with an arrest warrant, and Police Scotland is currently looking into whether they should be doing the same.
The obvious flaw with the cutting-edge, AI-powered tech is that non-AI actual human beings can just whack on a mask and the system’s screwed, and part of me loves that, because it demonstrates that AI is terribly clever and terribly stupid and humans can still defeat it. But the Scottish Police Federation has pointed out that there’s little point in investing millions of pounds in sophisticated technology capable of recognising a face if an individual can simply hide their face behind a mask.
The federation’s suggested solution raises some questions though. Its general secretary David Kennedy says that, in order to get round the problem of people hiding their faces from LFR, there might need to be “limited circumstances” in which the police could require people to remove face coverings. Something similar has already been introduced in England with the new Crime and Policing Act which allows the cops to establish 24-hour mask-free zones in designated areas. A senior officer can designate a public place as a mask-free zone “if they reasonably believe a protest is likely to take place and is likely to or has involved the commission of offences and it is expedient to designate the area as mask-free in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences”.
Read more
One last look round Paisley Grammar – and one final lesson | The Herald
Inside No 1: the extraordinary Dublin home of a scandalous hero | The Herald
Are we paying attention to what’s happening to Scotland’s birds? | The Herald
We’ll have to wait and see how this particular provision of the law pans out in England, but assuming something similar could be introduced in Scotland, there are a couple of things to worry about. Firstly, we’ve got a legal power with sweeping consequences that’s based on flabby wording that’s hard to define and therefore easy to abuse (“is likely to” and “if it is expedient”). Secondly, I’ve been to lots of protests, often on highly contentious subjects such as trans rights and immigration, at which some people are wearing masks and it’s often because they’re worried what might happen if their employer, or even their friends and family, found out about their views, and it may be a legitimate worry (I refer you to my previous remark about our tense and anxious times).
The way the Scottish Police Federation has framed their argument also rings some alarm bells. Facial recognition technology, they say, will only work if we prevent people from covering their faces, but what that’s effectively saying is that one extension of surveillance and control (cameras) will only work if we impose another extension of surveillance and control (ban on masks), and we know how this can work: apparently small extensions can cover quite big distances if we don’t keep an eye on it.
Having said that, I do understand where the police are coming from to some extent. When there was a stushie about Glasgow City Council cutting staffing hours at the CCTV operating centre, meaning the system would be unmanned for half the day, I spoke to officers about it and they said the cameras were vital for preventing and detecting crime. They also said it was a comfort to know that if something was kicking off, the camera operators could send help quickly without having to wait for a phone call. The staffing cuts are also a reminder that the best tech ultimately relies on humans and the same will apply to LFR: it can scan public places all it likes, but the decisions to intervene, or arrest a suspect, or whatever, will need to be made by human staff.
So why is it then, I wonder, that someone like me, someone who likes to think they’re liberal on free speech and freedom of expression, and is concerned about any extension of police powers, is thinking a ban on masks in public might actually be a good idea? Partly, I think, it’s because the sight of masks takes me back to 2020 and the pandemic. I said back then that we shouldn’t underestimate the effect the customary or mandatory wearing of masks might have on our culture; there are some countries, I said, in which masks and face coverings are common but in Britain we tend to feel cultural angst about people covering their faces in public, and the openness needs protecting. Some people said at the time, some people still say, that the risks to health matter more, but I, and many others, said the response to the coronavirus wasn’t just about the risk to health, it was about balancing the risk with other risks, to the economy for example, or our way of life. Six years on, I still believe that.
I also happen to think I was right about the effects the customary or mandatory wearing of masks might have on our culture. Even now, you occasionally see someone in public wearing a mask and, as I say, it’s not uncommon to see masks at protests. Not only does it creep me out – not being able to see someone’s face is creepy – it’s clear the wearing of masks in public has become a form of expression, particularly on the Left and among some trans-rights and LGBT protesters. As it did for some people during the pandemic, a mask can communicate to others that you have certain views; it is a physical demonstration of your opinions: hide your face, show your opinions. And it’s creepy, really creepy.
The creepiness isn’t confined to the Left of course; there were masked people at the recent anti-immigration protests in Glasgow, but the concerns about masks and face coverings apply to Left and Right. For the police, it’s about the concern that if things kick off at a protest, masks make it hard to identify the culprits. There must also be a concern that the act of wearing a mask itself helps to create an atmosphere in which things are more likely to kick off. The fact people can’t see each other’s faces is hardly likely to create a warm and friendly atmosphere is it?
The response suggested by the Scottish Police Federation might work as a solution, who knows, but it strikes me that officers designating 24-hour no-mask zones sounds complicated and time-consuming. A better approach perhaps – and I’m having to fight my liberal instincts to suggest this – would be a presumption against all masks and face coverings on the grounds that showing your face, and seeing other people’s faces, is a social norm worth protecting. It will mean some awkward conversations, particularly on the subject of religious face veils. But if we worry about an extension to the powers of the police, we should worry too about an erosion of social norms and social cohesion – and the disturbing sight of faces disappearing, one by one by one, behind masks.
Share