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.
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.
On November 16th, 2021, the Future of Privacy Forum, in partnership with the Brussels Privacy Hub, organised the 2021 Brussels Privacy Symposium entitled ‘The Age of AI Regulation: Global Strategic Directions’. This symposium marked one of the first opportunities to discuss the AI Regulation Chair’s current project, which aims to map the use of facial recognition in public places in Europe.
To contribute to the debate around the use and appropriate regulation of Facial Recognition Technologies, AI Regulation and Skopai have engaged in a unique partnership in order to map the current landscape of start-ups developing facial recognition technologies.
On May 27, 2021, a coalition of civil society groups including Privacy International, the Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights, Homo Digitalis and noyb, filed several claims in Europe against the U.S facial recognition firm Clearview AI.
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.