Italy Outlaws Facial Recognition Tech, Except To Fight Crime

Italy prohibited the use of facial recognition and "smart glasses" on Monday as its Data Protection Agency issued a rebuke to two municipalities experimenting with the technology. Reuters reports: Facial recognition systems using biometric data will not be allowed until a specific law is adopted or at least until the end of next year, the privacy watchdog said. The exception is when such technologies play a role in judicial investigations or the fight against crime. "The moratorium arises from the need to regulate eligibility requirements, conditions and guarantees relating to facial recognition, in compliance with the principle of proportionality," the agency said in a statement.

Under European Union and Italian law, the processing of personal data by public bodies using video devices is generally allowed on public interest grounds and when linked to the activity of public authorities, it added. However, municipalities that want to use them have to strike "urban security pacts" with central government representatives, it added. The agency was reacting to measures taken in the southern Italian city of Lecce, where authorities said they would begin using a technology based on facial recognition. The privacy watchdog also targeted the Tuscan city of Arezzo, where local police were due to be equipped with infrared super glasses that can recognise car number plates.

Pretty Fuzzy Border...

[Petersko]

Is it called something akin to the "Patriot Act" by any chance? Because... you know... "patriotism"....

Re:

[Darinbob]

Just redefine what "crime" is and you can use it for anything! Remember, "political crime" was/is a real thing in some places.

Re:

[MBGMorden]

The only legitimate complaint I could see here would be if there was a credible threat of false positives, in which case lets argue that instead. There seems to be a growing trend though where some people legitimately see it as somehow "unfair" for the government to get certain tools to catch legitimate criminals.

IMHO, so long as the accuracy is there, and we're not delving into something like Minority Report stuff where we're punishing crimes that haven't happened, then I don't want the government hampere

Re:

[Petersko]

Well, I'm not particularly worried about false positives. I'd be more worried about the fact that you can stretch explanations a long way in search of "fighting crime." On it's face, it seems reasonable. But the devil is in the details, and people will run with that ball as fast and as far as they can.

If this is to fly, what constitutes use in "fighting crime" should be defined in excruciating detail in the terms from the outset. Otherwise it'll be abused within an hour of implementation.

Re: Pretty Fuzzy Border...

[easyTree]

Whatever the conditions/limits to the use of something a government entity wants, those conditions are likely to manifest mysteriously one nano-second after they are understood.

So, not really outlawed at all

[Sarusa]

This is like saying nobody can go in the hen house except the foxes, because we can trust them, right?

And 'fighting crime' can be pretty nebulous. Arguably, anyone who wants to use facial recognition, like Facebook, could say they're doing it to prevent crime.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:So, not really outlawed at all

[test321]

'fighting crime' can be pretty nebulous. Arguably, anyone who wants to use facial recognition, like Facebook, could say they're doing it to prevent crime.

This news is exclusively about how Italy decided to RESTRICT further what its public entities (municipalities, local authorities) can do with facial recognition and more generally image recognition. For example they are now investigating why a municipality (Arezzo) has been using image processing to automatically read driver's licences and detect infractors -- this is very connected to crime fighting, but is not per se crime fighting, because such reading would occur on regular drivers who are not suspect of committing crime.

Facebook is not a public entity and never could never argue to be fighting crime (would be considered an usurpation of public authority).

More information at: https://www.wired.it/article/r... [wired.it] (in Italian)

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Facebook is not a public entity and never could never argue to be fighting crime (would be considered an usurpation of public authority).

Que fascismo

Re:

[test321]

Some arguments: First sarcasm: 1) TFS: law changed. 2) Slashdot: That's bad! Facebook will abuse it! 3) Me: no it's not allowed 4) Slashdot: That's bad! Fascism!

More seriously... During the 2015 European migrant crisis, some vigilante started patrolling mountain passes in the Alps (where migrants crossed from Italy to France), caught some illegal migrants and handed them to authorities. These vigilantes were arrested, and their main organizer sentenced to 6 months in jail. https://www.euronews.com/2019/... [euronews.com]

Re:

[drinkypoo]

I think that anyone willing to do honest investigation through legal means should be encouraged to do so. Whether Facebook could ever accomplish that is highly doubtful, but taking a default stance that only the state should investigate crime is always a bad look.

Re:

[test321]

that anyone willing to do honest investigation through legal means should be encouraged to do so.

I agree with you, individuals should be allowed and encouraged to investigate.

Note that the original issue related to entities not to individuals. What triggered me is an inversion of reasoning. You can't shift Facbook into crime fighting as an excuse, you need to start from classical investigation and maybe be allowed to use better tools.

I don't think the Facebook example would work because Facebook has other stated goals, and the tools available to Facebook are so large and powerful that a strict oversigh

Fantastic idea!

[SvnLyrBrto]

So the organizations and institutions most likely to abuse (and to already be abusing) facial recognition are exempted from the law that's supposed to stop abuse of facial recognition. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Fantastic idea!

[test321]

There is no law yet. The watchdog in charge of privacy in Italy has discovered that several local authorities had been using facial recognition without formally allowed to. So they issued a temporary ban on all technologies excepting for actual law enforcement agencies. The ban is valid until a new law, expected next year, will clarify the conditions of use.

Local authorities had been using facial recognition for example to identify traffic violators. This was considered an abuse and is now explicitly not allowed. Law enforcement agencies (criminal police) can continue to use it.

Re:

[OrangAsm]

So, this is about limiting the police state to the police, who are, as you say, criminals. Got it.

That would mean no recent iPhones

[Applehu Akbar]

But can a tourist use her iPhone while in Italy?

Re: That would mean no recent iPhones

[registrations_suck]

Do they do anything else?

Legal for everything then?

[CaptainLugnuts]

Oh, we're just ID'ing everyone who walks through the door to collate thefts with who is in the store.

Face unlock

[mkwan]

Despite the headline, it sounds like the ban only applies to cameras in public spaces. Otherwise smartphone face unlock and biometric passports would be banned, and that doesn't seem to be the intent.

Italy's new government

[thegarbz]

Is it a shock that a far-right government modelled on former fascism would invoke "privacy" as a reason no one can do something? ... oh except the government itself, for safety of course.

No sympathy. This is what Italy voted for.

The exception is when such technologies play a rol

[easyTree]

Pause...

News just in: "Italy sees 24x increase in suspected crimes where facial recognition would yield the best detection results."