AI-Regulation Researchers propose a highly interesting comparative approach of the definition of different categories of “data”, including “sensitive” and “biometric” data, as found in more than 20 international instruments. Karine Bannelier and Anaïs Trotry decided to proceed to a comparative analysis of all relevant international instruments and to compile, in two Charts, the definitions appearing in these instruments. You can download the Charts and read their first findings in this article. 

An Argentinian Court has declared the use of the ‘Facial Recognition for Fugitives System’ (Sistema de Reconocimiento Facial de Prófugos), deployed in Buenos Aires in 2019, unconstitutional. In April 2022, in response to the legal challenge presented by Observatorio de Derecho Informático Argentino (ODIA), and several other human rights organisations, the judge suspended use of the system. 

European Digital Rights (EDRi), an association of civil and human rights organisations, published, on September 7th, 2022, its position paper on the European Union’s proposed “Regulation on automated data exchange for police cooperation”, known as Prüm II.  The report underlines several issues concerning the draft regulation, the purpose of which is to modify the data sharing process between EU member states, by including, among other things, ‘automated searching of facial images’.

Due to the proliferation of “intelligent” video devices in public spaces, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) launched a public consultation on its draft position concerning the conditions for the deployment of so-called “smart” cameras in public spaces. Following several months of consideration, and various contributions from public and private actors, the Commission published its opinion last July.

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.

This is the first ever detailed analysis of what is the most widespread way in which Facial Recognition is used in public (& private) spaces: to authorise access to a place or to a service. The 3rd Report in our #MAPFRE series should be of great interest to lawyers interested in data protection; AI ethics specialists; the private sector; data controllers; DPAs and the EDPB; policymakers; and the general public, who will find here an accessible way to understand all these issues.

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.

Earlier this month, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a civil law enforcement agency, published a settlement order requiring WW International, Inc. (formerly known as Weight Watchers) and its subsidiary Kurbo to delete the personal data illegally collected from children under 13 and to destroy any algorithm or AI model built using such data.

On March 12, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) opened a public consultation about their new guidelines on Virtual Vocal Assistants (VVA) which were adopted on March 9, 2021.

On a short comment published on Nature Machine Intelligence, British researchers argued for “advancing impact assessment for intelligent systems”.

The Spanish Agency for Data Protection (AEPA) published on February, 13th 2020 a first guide for the adequacy to regulation (EU) 2016/679 (on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) of products and services that include and use artificial intelligence components.