Australia's Western Australian Police Force recently completed its first live trial of facial recognition technology, scanning over 900,000 faces in public spaces. The trial, which took place during major events and in other public areas, used the technology to compare scanned faces with a police watch list. When a match was found, officers nearby were alerted. The results included 209 alerts, leading to 79 arrests and the identification of 114 registered sex offenders. However, the trial also recorded eight incorrect alerts, raising questions about the system's reliability. Facial recognition technology works by analyzing unique features in a person's face and comparing them to a database of known individuals. In this case, the system was used to identify people of interest, such as those on a police watch list. While the police described the trial as operationally successful, it has sparked discussions about the ethical use of such technology in public spaces. Privacy experts have raised concerns about the lack of consent in the process. Individuals were scanned without being informed or given the option to opt out, which some argue violates their right to privacy. There are also worries about accuracy, particularly regarding how the system might perform differently for people with darker skin tones or under varying lighting conditions. These factors can lead to errors, which could disproportionately impact certain groups, such as First Nations people and other marginalized communities. WA Police Commissioner Col Blanch explained that the incorrect alerts could have been influenced by factors like lighting, skin tone, and the quality of the reference image. However, the trial results do not include data on false negatives—cases where the system failed to detect someone it should have—or how the technology performed across different demographic groups. Additionally, there is limited transparency about the watch list itself, including how individuals were added to it and the procedures for correcting errors. These gaps have led to calls for greater oversight and clearer guidelines to ensure the technology is used responsibly and fairly.