In June 2022, the Ada Lovelace institute published an ‘Independent legal review of the governance of biometric data in England and Wales’ written by Matthew Ryder. This review aims to address the current legal uncertainty concerning the collection, use and processing of biometric data in England and Wales. It also puts forward 10 recommendations to improve the legal framework as well as the governance of biometrics in England and Wales.
The French DPA, CNIL, stressed that “the current debate on facial recognition is sometimes distorted by a poor grasp of this technology and how it works”. This 2nd of 6 Reports of our MAPFRE series provides a path to understanding with a classification table presenting in the most accessible way the different facial processing functionalities and applications used in public spaces.
How to regulate the use of facial recognition in public spaces in Europe? This crucial debate has often been characterised by a lack of clarity and precision. Here is the first of 6 Reports from our big “MAPFRE” research project, a detailed independent study analysing the different ways in which FRT is being used and the related legal issues.
On November 24, 2021, during the 41st session of UNESCO’s General Conference, the “Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” was adopted. This is the first global “standard-setting instrument” that seeks to regulate the use of AI in an ethical way, although some initiatives were taken in the European context. The project came about due to a decision made at the General Conference at its 40th session in 2019.
The European Commission’s April 2021 proposal for a Regulation aiming at harmonized rules across the EU for AI is a major legal development and the negotiations at the EU level will be particularly interesting and tough. Renaissance Numérique and AI-Regulation contribute to the debate.
On September 22nd 2021, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), the Body that represents civil society organisations within the European Union, adopted Catelijne Muller’s Opinion on the EU Commission’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) proposal.
On June 29, 2021, a draft report was presented and adopted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters.
Over the past few weeks, the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg-based organisation that promotes and protects human rights, democracy and the rule of law, has been raising awareness about the risks of using AI enabled technologies and preparing a draft proposal for ensuring adequate AI regulation.
Artificial intelligence will be a major issue in the very near future, and Brussels has understood this. On October 20th, the European Parliament has adopted a series of three resolutions on how best to regulate artificial intelligence in order to boost innovation and confidence in the technology
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.