14th June 2023
Draft legislation recognises the significant risks posed by facial recognition technology
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) welcomes the outcome of today’s plenary vote in the European Parliament on the EU’s draft Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. The vote establishes the Parliament’s position on the Act ahead of negotiations with the Council of the EU and the European Commission.
The Parliament’s text includes a complete ban on the use of real-time facial recognition technology (FRT) in public spaces and represents a significant blow to the Irish Government’s plans to introduce FRT for An Garda Síochána.
Speaking today, Dr Kris Shrishak, Senior Fellow, ICCL said:
“The EU’s AI Act is likely to become a global standard for AI regulation and so the stakes for people’s fundamental rights are extremely high. Today’s vote sends a clear message to the other EU institutions that the Parliament feels AI should be strictly regulated to protect EU citizens’ rights.
“The Parliament addresses some of the risks from AI systems like ChatGPT, which is welcome. But we still have many concerns. The Parliament should take a firm stand during the trialogues to prevent companies from gobbling up data for free and using copyright-protected data for training without consent.
“The Parliament has also tied regulators’ hands by preventing them from accessing the source code of AI systems for investigations. We are concerned that, similar to the GDPR, we will see problems when it comes to enforcing this legislation.”
The AI Act, Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) and Policing
The text agreed by the European Parliament in today’s vote would ban:
- All use of live FRT in public spaces, with no exceptions;
- Running an FRT analysis of recorded footage obtained from public spaces, with the exception of law enforcement for the prosecution of serious crimes and only with judicial approval in a specific case.
Liam Herrick, Executive Director, ICCL, said:
“Today’s vote in the European Parliament is a serious blow for the Government’s plans to introduce facial recognition technology for Gardaí – including as part of the proposed body-worn camera system. The Parliament has recognised the significant risks inherent in FRT and definitively moved to protect the rights of EU citizens.
“In light of today’s vote, we hope Minister McEntee will reconsider her approach on this issue. At a minimum, if she wishes to continue with her efforts to introduce FRT in spite of today’s vote, then she needs to publish her proposals and allow the Oireachtas – and the public who will be subject to this surveillance – see what she proposes to do.”
FRT systems can allow for disproportionate mass surveillance and turn people into human licence plates by enabling the identification and tracking of individuals without warranted suspicion. They can have a chilling effect on people’s behaviour and have been shown to be biased and discriminatory, particularly for anyone who is not a white man.
Liam Herrick continued:
“The decision to ban live FRT in public spaces is very welcome, but we remain concerned that in certain circumstances law enforcement may still be permitted to use retrospective FRT under this draft legislation. Retrospective use of FRT represents as major an interference with people’s fundamental rights as live FRT use – and it has been found to be potentially even more risky for people’s rights.”
Ends
Available for comment:
- Dr Kris Shrishak, Senior Fellow, ICCL (for queries related to the AI Act)
- Liam Herrick, Executive Director, ICCL (for queries related to FRT in Ireland)
For media queries: ruth.mccourt@iccl.ie / 087 415 7162
Notes to Editors
ICCL made a significant number of recommendations on how to improve the AI Act. Read details of our recommendations and those which were included in the Act here.
The European Parliamentary Research Service has previously warned that the risk of persistent tracking, and its associated adverse impact on fundamental rights and democracy in respect of retrospective use of remote biometric identification systems, such as FRT, is “at least equivalent” to the risk associated with ‘real-time’ remote biometric identification. Noting the weakness of the distinction between the two, it warned (page 55):
“As the images potentially available for ‘post’ remote biometric identification of natural persons are actually more numerous than those available at any point in time for real-time identification, they should also make it possible to draw a much more complete picture of the activities of any individual, thus representing a major interference with their fundamental rights.”