An algorithmic tool designed to “predict migration flows” and “detect risks of tensions related to migration” is being developed by the EU as part of its security program. Against this background, a group of civil society organisations and individuals published a joint letter highlighting the risks posed by this technology in terms of criminalising migration and undermining human rights. 

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’.

On August 30th, 2022, the Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) released a report, commissioned by former Prime Minister Jean Castex on June 24th, 2021, proposing a landscape of AI technology deployed in the public sector, which examines the technical, operational, ethical and legal aspects of this issue.

For several years now, the European Commission has been working on a number of projects concerned with regulating Artificial Intelligence, digital services, and digital markets.  It has now issued a proposal for tighter rules on liability with regard to the technology industry. Amid these developments, a coalition of start-ups, small and medium enterprises, and technology companies sent a letter, dated August 24, 2022, to the European Commission expressing their concerns about the forthcoming European legislation, which seeks to modify the liability rules concerning artificial intelligence.

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.

On July 13th, 2022, the Greek Data Protection Authority (DPA) released its decision about the claims brought by the NGO Homo Digitalis on the processing of individuals’ biometric data by Clearview and fined Clearview 20 million euros. This lawsuit follows many similar cases filed by Noyb, Privacy International, and the Hermès Center for transparency and Digital Human Rights before the French, British, Italian and Austrian DPAs to stop the American start-up collecting biometric data belonging to European citizens.

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.

At a time when ad hoc legislation on AI is being negotiated at the European level, the French Senate published on May 10, 2022, a report proposing regulations on biometric recognition in public spaces. The purpose of this report is to put forward a framework for facial recognition experimentation and to reinforce French and European technological sovereignty.

In 2019, Buenos Aires City Council introduced the ‘Facial Recognition for Fugitives System’ (Sistema de Reconocimiento Facial de Prófugos (SNRP)), which involved deploying 9,500 surveillance cameras equipped with facial recognition technology.

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.