Can these trials be justified in logical or ethical terms? Does the end justify the means, or is it worth protecting our human rights at the cost of potential threats?
“If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
This argument is often used to imply critics of mass surveillance are criminals by drawing a false equivalence between those who want personal privacy and those who want secrecy for their crimes.
This argument is effectively stating: ‘You must be hiding something if you don’t want the police watching your every move.’ However, the police often make mistakes, harass or even kill innocents occasionally, meaning you DO have something to fear.
This goes double for BAME Britons, many of whom fear the “institutionally racist”  police force that is 9 and a half times more likely to use invasive stop and search measures on Black people . When people claim that the government will leave innocent people alone, they are speaking from privilege, naivety or both.
‘It’s worth sacrificing our right to privacy if it means we are safer.’
Many people argue that surveillance is a necessary evil to keep us safe from criminals and terrorists, but how much of a difference does it make?
Multiple studies have “showed that improved street lighting was more effective [than CCTV] in reducing crime”  and the number of CCTV cameras has climbed WITH crime: There are now roughly 6 million  cameras in the UK and violent crime has risen by 20% according to a recent BBC report .
Since there is little (if any) proof that CCTV or LFR directly reduces crime, why should we submit to invasive surveillance?
‘Better surveillance tools would help the police tackle crime’
Many people argue that rising crime and terrorism is linked to limited police funding, though the police received £12.3 billion (with £728million specifically for counter-terrorism) in 2018/19 . The police clearly have plenty of funding but don’t spend it well:
“The whole idea that [The Mayor of London] is cash-strapped is absurd, especially when they can afford to spend £10 million on a leadership course.” 
- Stephen Greenhalgh, former deputy Mayor of Policing in London
Similarly, the Met Police and government have a wealth of information at their fingertips but often fail to use it effectively. Previous watchlists like the Gangs Matrix were largely unsuccessful, and this new trial seems to be making the same mistakes; tarring suspects, innocents and wanted criminals with the same brush.
In conclusion, I believe that the LFR technology is unnecessary, illegal and unethical. I firmly believe that LFR is an invasion of privacy and that crime can be better tackled through other methods, such as community outreach and more police patrols.