The growing use of facial recognition technologies has put them under the regulatory spotlight all around the world. The EU considers to regulate facial regulation technologies as a part of initiative of creating ethical and legal framework for trustworthy artificial intelligence. These technologies are attracting attention of the EU data protection authorities, e.g. in Sweden and the UK. In May, San Francisco was the first city in the US to ban police and other government agencies from using facial recognition technology, soon followed by other US cities. The paper aims to analyze the impact of facial recognition technology on the fundamental rights and values as well as the development of its regulation in Europe and the US. The paper will reveal how these technologies may significantly undermine fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy, and may lead to prejudice and discrimination. Moreover, alongside the risks to fundamental rights a wider impact of these surveillance technologies on democracy and the rule of law needs to be assessed. Although the existing laws, in particular the EU General Data Protection Regulation already imposes significant requirements, there is a need for further guidance and clear regulatory framework to ensure trustworthy use of facial recognition technology.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based surveillance technologies such as facial recognition, emotion recognition and other biometric technologies have been rapidly introduced by both public and private entities all around the world, raising major concerns about their impact on fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy. This article questions the efficiency of the European Commission’s Proposal for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence, known as the AI Act, in addressing the threats and risks to fundamental rights posed by AI biometric surveillance systems. It argues that in order to meaningfully address risks to fundamental rights the proposed classification of these systems should be reconsidered. Although the draft AI Act acknowledges that some AI practices should be prohibited, the multiple exceptions and loopholes should be closed, and in addition new prohibitions, in particular to emotional recognition and biometric categorisation systems, should be added to counter AI surveillance practices violating fundamental rights. The AI Act should also introduce stronger legal requirements, such as third-party conformity assessment, fundamental rights impact assessment, transparency obligations as well as enhance existing EU data protection law and the rights and remedies available to individuals, thus not missing the unique opportunity to adopt the first legal framework that truly promotes trustworthy AI.
Edward Snowden’s surveillance revelations in 2013 raised the issue of privacy and security in the public spotlight. These revelations underlined the need for a strong data protection framework. At the same time, the pressing demand to address security concerns and the threat of terrorist attacks might weaken privacy and data protection standards. Two landmark judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, namely the Digital rights Ireland judgment (which invalidates the Data Retention Directive) and the Schrems judgment (which invalidates the Safe Harbour Decision forming a legal basis for transatlantic data transfers) are of great significance in strengthening the rights to privacy and data protection in the context of digital mass surveillance. They continue to have far-reaching implications for EU and national data retention mechanisms, as well on the cross-border data transfer framework. Through the lens of the CJEU, the chapter reveals the key challenges that data protection law faces both at national and EU level that have to be addressed in response to mass surveillance in order to maintain a proper balance between privacy and national security.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.