Human rights groups are advocating for transparency in police facial recognition technology, highlighting the need for accountability, oversight, and specific laws governing its use. In the UK, concerns are raised about the implications of accessing drivers’ database for surveillance, while Georgia investigates allegations of facial recognition use against protestors. The report underscores a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties protection.
Rights groups have raised concerns over the potential implications of the UK’s new policing bill, which allows for biometric matching with driver database records. They highlight a balance that law enforcement must maintain between effective policing and respecting civil rights. In particular, a network of human rights organizations stresses the need for radical transparency regarding facial recognition technologies used by law enforcement, advocating for the disclosure of algorithm source codes and training data to those impacted by these systems.
The International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO) released a report in February advocating for greater accountability in the use of facial recognition technology. It emphasizes the importance of specific laws governing the technology’s application by police. The alliance comprises 15 organizations from various countries including the ACLU and Liberty, both of which note a significant lack of regulatory frameworks in their respective nations.
The INCLO report lists several principles aimed at mitigating harms associated with facial recognition use. Recommendations include naming an independent oversight body, conducting impact assessments, and ensuring public consultations on technology specifications, with detailed breakdowns of both hardware and software components. The report argues that all policing FRT systems, regardless of accuracy, present fundamental human rights risks by undermining individual anonymity.
Moreover, they recommend limiting facial recognition to investigative leads only and suggest annual reports be published to detail misidentifications. The report urges against the use of live facial recognition technology, citing risks of abuse against vulnerable groups such as journalists or protestors. This call for transparency is crucial for upholding democratic principles and the right to a fair trial.
In response to concerns about the planned use of driver license data for facial recognition under the UK’s Crime and Policing Bill, the government has denied these claims. They firmly stated it is “categorically untrue” that police would access driving license databases for facial recognition purposes. Critics, however, argue that the provisions could facilitate unlawful surveillance and evade consent from the public.
The UK’s proposed bill, which aims to strengthen police powers in addressing anti-social behavior, has prompted alarms about privacy erosion. Civil liberties groups have voiced fears that access to driver data could constitute an invasive biometric database that places citizens in a digital police line-up.
In another instance, the Georgia Personal Data Protection Service has opened investigations into the usage of facial recognition on protestors. Complaints by the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association alleged unlawful surveillance during protests against the government. Investigations will examine the legality of biometric data collection through CCTV cameras near the Parliament.
Georgia’s situation reflects broader concerns regarding surveillance capabilities amidst civil unrest. The country has over 4,300 smart cameras in place, raising significant civil liberty issues regarding dissident monitoring.
The calls for transparency in facial recognition technology usage highlight the ongoing tension between law enforcement effectiveness and civil freedoms. As seen in both the UK and Georgia, there is a pressing demand for regulatory frameworks and oversight mechanisms to mitigate potential abuses of such surveillance technologies. Human rights organizations emphasize accountability, rigorous impact assessments, and the establishment of laws to protect individual rights amidst growing police powers in biometric surveillance.
Original Source: www.biometricupdate.com
