On June 22, Western Australian police became the nation’s first law enforcement agency to use live facial recognition technology to find persons of interest. The trial involves a clearly marked van with cameras driving around Perth and Mandurah. It scans the faces of everyone it passes, comparing them against a watchlist of about 4,000 people. It includes those with outstanding arrest warrants, reportable offenders, people subject to lawful exclusion orders, and missing persons. The exercise is overt and widely publicised, with the dates of deployments posted in advance. In its first week, media reports put the trial at more than 130,000 faces scanned and 33 alerts. It led to 18 arrests, along with engagements with registered sex offenders. Work that would have taken weeks of conventional investigative effort has been done in days by a single van. But harder questions surround its governance. Can we really call it a “trial”? Who gets to authorise such deployments? And who checks the safeguards? Can we actually call it a ‘trial’? Any trial of new technology requires success criteria defined in advance, independent evaluation, and the possibility the technology won’t be deployed on a permanent basis after the trial completes. That’s not what seems to be happening in WA. WA police both runs the deployment and compiles the results it publishes, and no independent evaluator has been named. Its own privacy impact assessment says funding is not yet determined, and lists event security among the intended uses. Arrests are an incomplete measure of success, because everyone arrested was already wanted. These are not crimes solved, but simply a known watchlist being worked through more quickly. And an arrest count only records the hits, not the misses. What remains undisclosed is the human cost – any innocent people the system might misidentify and send