European Parliament Calls For a Ban On Facial Recognition (politico.eu) 28
The European Parliament today called for a ban on police use of facial recognition technology in public places, and on predictive policing, a controversial practice that involves using AI tools in hopes of profiling potential criminals before a crime is even committed. Politico reports: In a resolution adopted overwhelmingly in favor, MEPs also asked for a ban on private facial recognition databases, like the ones used by the controversial company Clearview AI. The Parliament also supports the European Commission's attempt in its AI bill to ban social scoring systems, such as the ones launched by China that rate citizens' trustworthiness based on their behavior.
The non-biding resolution sends a strong signal on how the Parliament is likely to vote in upcoming negotiations of the AI Act. The European Commission's proposal of the bill restricts the use of remote biometric identification -- including facial recognition technology -- in public places unless it is to fight "serious" crime, such as kidnappings and terrorism. The AI Act's lead negotiator, Brando Benifei and almost all of his co-negotiators from other political groups in the Parliament have called for a blanket ban on facial recognition. This is in stark contrast to policies implemented in some EU member countries, who are keen to use these technologies to bolster their security apparatuses.
The non-biding resolution sends a strong signal on how the Parliament is likely to vote in upcoming negotiations of the AI Act. The European Commission's proposal of the bill restricts the use of remote biometric identification -- including facial recognition technology -- in public places unless it is to fight "serious" crime, such as kidnappings and terrorism. The AI Act's lead negotiator, Brando Benifei and almost all of his co-negotiators from other political groups in the Parliament have called for a blanket ban on facial recognition. This is in stark contrast to policies implemented in some EU member countries, who are keen to use these technologies to bolster their security apparatuses.
Europe vs USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This resolution appears to miss the mark as well.
Rather than calling for a ban on running algorithms on massive databases of photos collected by the police, it is the collecting that should be banned.
It is a non-binding resolution, so it doesn't mean much anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Does this also include not marginalizing or treating as second class citizens who choose not to get vaccinated against covid or other future behaviors folks choose not to participate in?
It's a genuine question....I'm vaccinated, but I"m a bit alarmed at how people are de-humanizing almost folks that choose not to, and taking away public access from them, etc.
I mean, I think it is good to get the jab, but if you believe in it, then why
Re: Europe vs USA (Score:2)
I mean, if the vaccine works, then you do not have to protect the vaccinated against the un-vaccinated.
The vaccine isn't sterilising, and non-vaccinated get it with worse symptoms, including many more ICU cases. Check out Our World In Data: https://ourworldindata.org/cov... [ourworldindata.org] and look at the number of ICU patients per million. Then realise that in the EU for example, the average number of ICU places is 11 per 100.000 inhabitants (Wikipedia
Re: (Score:3)
Really missing my EU citzenship now. The UK police love facial recognition.
Re: (Score:3)
overrated. e.g. spanish police needs no face recognition software to gouge an eye out with rubber ammunition, or completely smash a face or break the spine to any random citizen in catalonia, with a warranted absolution in court on basis of "due dilligence". this actually happens regularly so topics like public surveillance cams can come across as a bit on the frivolous spectrum. they won't break your bones. oh, and btw: europe doesn't really seem upset with this ...
police are assholes everywhere, and gener
Re: Europe vs USA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you need privacy?"
"to protect me from the likes of you who are asking" would be the logical response, and i really can't imagine how the conversation doesn't end just right there, but somehow it does ...
that said, refreshing, yes, but don't open the cava just yet. the european parliament is famous for grandiloquent and sensible discourses that then make no real difference in the end, or even while the whole apparatus looks politely away depending who the offender is. which is most of the time. and which is what you would exp
Re: (Score:2)
"to protect me from the likes of you who are asking"
Only criminals desire protection from the law. Now come here so we can tattoo the barcode with your social security number on your forehead, since we are not allowed to use facial recognition anymore...
Re: (Score:3)
No need for that.
We only need you to present your "vaccination credentials" wherever you go (if in fact you are allowed to go out in public).
Re: (Score:2)
EU. Not Europe.
The EU is only about half of all of Europe.
Please don't keep spreading that fairly recent propaganda that calls the EU "Europe", in vein of how the USA is falsely called "America" and east-Asia is falsely called "Asia".
Europe's border is a cultural one. Because the cultures spread to the Ural mountains.
If you drive across them. you can completely see why this was chosen and makes sense.
People just look "Asian" the other side of them, and "European" on this side. Apparently the mountains kept
EU dictators (Score:2)
Why, tech companies should do whatever the hell they feel like, social consequences be damned.
Banning the CCTV. (Score:2)
Good thing the British got out of the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants to ban CCTV, just this facial recognition software. Also, most of the CCTV in the UK is either not turned on, or is not recording, because there aren't enough people to watch or review the footage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there is no good argument for recording unless "recording" is subject to total public transparence and there is a protocol to ensure fair use and proper custody. we all know that will never will happen so this can't be anything but a power play ... making a good argument would mean you are either profiting form an asymmetric proposal or being profited from.
see, the conversation is never about security, it is only ever about their security. you just bought a beautiful cloud of smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
A camera just hanging somewhere is sometimes deterrant enough. There are also laws about the amount of time you're allowed to keep the recordings, usually 1 or 2 days. What's the point of recording if that time goes by before someone can review the footage?
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing the British got out of the EU.
Fool doesn't know the difference between facial recognition technology and CCTV. More at 11 on the Sad Trombone News Channel.
It will be banned ... (Score:3)
but it will still happen, the various security/etc services just pretend that they follow the law. Much as in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Non binding resolution (Score:2)
So poke everybody's eyes out (Score:2)
People can recognize faces too you know.
There is no logic in outlawing something that that a person is legally allowed to do naturally if it happens to be done with a computer.
Either both are legal, or both are not.
Don't get too excited (Score:2)
If you know anything about the EU they will implement a loophole so the whole thing is meaningless. The cookie law. as tracking stopped yet ? No, but the irritating popups haven't either.
Remember net neutrality? They provided a loophole that went something like, except if it's needed to security. Now there are providers, especially in Belgium, that block all port forwarding provision in their routers. No one has stopped them with this law.
Does this mean.. (Score:1)
.. that I have to bend over to have my next passport photograph taken..?
Isn't anyting "terrorism" nowadays? (Score:2)
Is there anything that those "reasons" haven't been used for anyway?
And they forgot "think of the children" too. So while they're at it, a few more things can be slipped in, that all translate to "dissent".