25 ms·

European parliament says it will not use facial recognition tech

95 points by dc352 7y ago

weystrom 7y ago
As usual, politicians start to claim privacy rights when it comes to them, and yet this technology is already being tested throughout major European cities. The hypocrisy is real.
- close04 7y ago
  Well to be honest those politicians will also be affected by the facial recognition tech used in the cities they live in just as any other citizen. If I were them I'd actively try to buck the trend not just wash my hands of it. But I think the point they want to make is that they did not mandate using it. Something along the lines of "you can use it but don't blame me for setting the trend" I'd guess.
- bilekas 7y ago
  the EU allows its countries to pursue their own policies, this is not hypocrisy, its simply clarifying that the EU itself will not be implementing this technology. What individual countries do is not up to the EU parliment.
  - eufandom 7y ago
    Except when it comes to mass migration, human rights to protect terrorists, bureaucracy and other useless measures. Tuen the eu suddenly forgets about subsidiarity and moreover it bullies nations into submission.
  - eufandom 7y ago
    It doesnt really, european countries are frequently bullied into submission. I.e. allowing 1 million undocumented aliens in, bureaucracy and all other things the far left of HN will flag. It will, without doubt, collapse die to the opposite of allowing countries do what they see fit for their own citizen safety.
    - bilekas 7y ago
      > I.e. allowing 1 million undocumented aliens in Human rights and trying to be decent to people fleeing wars is now a bad thing ? Also collectively agreeing to help these people.. Collectively. Countries can have their own policies. What Bullying are you talking about ?? I will refer to my previous statement as it seems some people don't really understand how the EU works. The EU is a memebership of collective countries, not some all powerfull entity of controlling its memebers and telling them what to do. > collapse die to the opposite of allowing countries do what they see fit for their own citizen safety You don't really get it, but please believe what you like. I'm going to take a stab and say you're pro-brexit too ?
      - eufandom 7y ago
        Not at all, it’s a good thung. But not chaotically and at that scale. Also not by bullying countries which already have helped pretty much all countries where such issues happen. It seeks like you still think the eu is an equal memberships club - germany issued a diktat, all others had better obeyed it, or else... I am against brexit and pro reform. The EU is dated and operates through bully power. If it doesnt reform it will collapse. Critique from within is what can actually prevent its collapse. If people dont want mass migration, or whatever they strongly oppose then the eu better take it into account, or else there will be no eu to do all the good it can do even without chaos. People like you who strongly oppose reform and blindly believe the eu is perfection is what pushes even those that want reform into the camps of brexit and the far right. Seems like there is no more middle ground. A shame really.
        bilekas 7y ago
        > People like you who strongly oppose reform and blindly believe the eu is perfection I don't think it's perfect, in fact I don't know of any system thats perfect, but how it operates in pricipal is okay, and how that reform and improvement is done could be quicker but I'm not going to claim it's going to collapse. The single market is the main selling point of the EU. Not imigration control, those issues are state decided. IE by the respective members. > germany issued a diktat, all others had better obeyed it, or else... What are you refering to ? Genuinely, what has been adopted by members that was not agreed to and has hurt their citizens ?
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Countries are supposed to implement the directives but some countries play fast and loose in how they implement directives. eg TUPE (employment law) is quite different in Spain Vs the UK
    - bilekas 7y ago
      It is true some members dont always play by the rules, even something as significant as GDPR has questionable implementation coverage even in Belgium. I know myself Ireland has some questionable Tax issues which dont really help the other countries get a fair playing field. Enforcement is an issue, it wasnt really imagined that you would agree to something as a group and then walk away and say : "Well forget that".
  - lprd 7y ago
    Interesting. I've been living in France for about 8 years now (I'm a US expat) and I really need to understand more about the EU's functions and abilities. I understand that there are different legislative bodies of Europe, but not sure how each applies. Do you have any material to help educate me on the subject? Thanks for the insight!
    - bilekas 7y ago
      https://europa.eu/european-union/law_en https://europa.eu/european-union/law_en The europa.eu site has ever piece of information available, it can be a bit wordy and legal but there is usually references to bodies and the precedents they have taken etc.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      > I understand that there are different legislative bodies of Europe, but not sure how each applies. As a very crude analogy with the US, you could view EU parliament as federal government and country parliaments (and governments) as state governments. Laws at the EU level are applicable to all countries, but individual countries have a lot of leeway in in implementation, enforcement and their own laws (as long as the don't contradict EU laws).
      - simion314 7y ago
        >As a very crude analogy with the US, you could view EU parliament as federal government and country parliaments (and governments) as state governments. I think this is not correct because from what I know in US you don't ever need unanimity to pass federal laws but let me know if I am wrong.
        dmitriid 7y ago
        That's why it's a crude analogy :) The devil is in the details, as always.
- AsusFan 7y ago
  Did you read the article at all? The European Union is already planning to introduce a temporary ban on facial recognition in public spaces - PRECISELY because the technology is being rolled out throughout European cities without first assessing the impact on rights such as privacy. The story is about a leaked draft of a plan to introduce the same technology on the parliament itself - which would be inconsistent with the previous point. I don't see any hypocrisy here.
  - weystrom 7y ago
    > The story is about a leaked draft of a plan to introduce the same technology on the parliament itself I did, and that's what I mean. They don't want it in the parliament and yet the subway station I use every day has facial recognition system in place, there is even a sign that says "it's for your safety". I'll believe in a ban when they'll take it down.
    - AsusFan 7y ago
      What part of "The European commission is expected to announce the ban this month, covering the use of the technology in stations, stadiums and shopping centres and lasting three to five years, to allow regulators time to assess the impact of the fast-developing technology." is confusing you? If you had followed the links, you'd know that there is a draft for the ban circulating since at least early January, and is due to come into effect sometime in February. Again: this is being rushed through precisely because of behaviors such as the one you describe. I fail to understand what there is to be outraged about here. Your exact complaint is in the process of being addressed (assuming you live in the EU).
      - izzydata 7y ago
        I get the impression he is saying it would have never been an issue for them if it wasn't ever going to be implemented at parliament specifically. It was not an issue to use it on every body else. If they could get away with it they would probably ban it from being used on themselves and continue to implement it everywhere else.
raxxorrax 7y ago
It is good to see that large scale surveillance is rejected. But I know it is important to stay vigilant. The EU certainly has an ambition to be more attractive as a location for tech, but I think surveillance and security technologies have a high amount of grifters and should not be encouraged.
- piokoch 7y ago
  No it is not rejected. This is only about EU parliament building. In fact, I would like facial recognition to be used over there, so we know which EU MP is meeting which lobbyists, for me this is would be a legitimate usecase of such technology.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    It certainly makes more sense to employ surveillance on officials instead of the whole public, but I would be cautious as well. Achieving transparency requires meticulous checks whereas video cameras only serve as a cheap distraction. Neither public servants nor lobbyists would be stupid enough to be affected, same goes for criminals for that matter, and while I do think that public figures need to make concessions to their privacy in some cases, it doesn't have to be unnecessarily excessive.
  - iso1210 7y ago
    I'd rather we had a well funded press that could apply journalistic skills to uncovering the truth
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > It is good to see that large scale surveillance is rejected. Where in this article do you see a rejection of large scale surveillance?
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    In that they will have severe problems in justifying or even allowing this kind of surveillance for anything, since they themselves don't want to be subjected to it. It is pretty important since it acknowledges that there can be rejection of it without stating any reason. For now, I am very happy with that. But as I said, vigilance is still necessary.
the-dude 7y ago
One could interpret this headline as 'misleading' : The parliament is not speaking on general policy, but only on the application of the technology on themselves ( the MEPs ).
chank 7y ago
Been through an airport in the EU or going to the EU lately?
- bilekas 7y ago
  That's not up to the EU. Thats up to the individual countries. The EU is a memebership of collective countries, not some all powerfull entity of controlling its memebers and telling them what to do.. It's not the same as the US federal system.
  - matthewmacleod 7y ago
    That is true, but it’s also the case that EU countries agree to collective rule-making in some cases. If the member states agree, following the established process, that facial recognition should be disallowed throughout the EU then that’s something that can totally happen. Just like GDPR.
    - bilekas 7y ago
      All member states would need to agree to implement the banning of facial recognition for it to be effective. Again this is a descision which the members must agree to. And it is certainly possible. But there is not 1 entity who decides for all members.
  - gdhbcc 7y ago
    How about all the mass surveillance programs the EU has been funding for decades that do use facial recognition?
    - Quanttek 7y ago
      What mass surveillance programs has the EU (not individual member states, like the UK or Germany) been funding "for decades"? The EU doesn't even have an intelligence service. The only entity I could be thinking about is Frontex.
  - tremon 7y ago
sebow 7y ago
Good clickbait. The EU will eventually force countries to use facial recognition, give it 5 years tops.
josephagoss 7y ago
Whereas Australia has blown right through the discussion and enabled facial recognition without public discourse. I just found out a close suburb (East Perth) has 30-60 government run facial recognition cameras being installed with this being pushed this year to the entire Perth city area. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/face-tracking-technology-rolled-out-across-east-perth/10636476 https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/face-tracking-tech... There is a reason Australia is the guinea pig of the western nations for erosion of rights and privacy tests to see how far we can be contained and pushed. Because Australians are the most passive of all peoples across the world and are historically the easiest population to control. But once the five eyes work out their tech and policy here they will push it out to the rest of the world. We are the control group. https://www.afr.com/technology/five-eyes-fears-rise-over-aussie-encryption-laws-20190221-h1bj6f https://www.afr.com/technology/five-eyes-fears-rise-over-aus... Australia’s population is so passive that we have passed extremely terrifying laws that now the five eyes use to bypass their own countries laws. Australia today. UK and USA tomorrow.
pzumk 7y ago
, yet.
kaazhan 7y ago
I does not mean there is no facial recognition deployed. I live in Marseille, France, and facial recognition is currently beeing deployey all over the city. In fact, not only facial recognition, but posture recognition, walk recognition, etc. Marseille and Nice are two test-towns for global french deployment...

95 points by dc352 7y ago

As usual, politicians start to claim privacy rights when it comes to them, and yet this technology is already being tested throughout major European cities. The hypocrisy is real.

close04 7y ago
Well to be honest those politicians will also be affected by the facial recognition tech used in the cities they live in just as any other citizen. If I were them I'd actively try to buck the trend not just wash my hands of it. But I think the point they want to make is that they did not mandate using it. Something along the lines of "you can use it but don't blame me for setting the trend" I'd guess.
bilekas 7y ago
the EU allows its countries to pursue their own policies, this is not hypocrisy, its simply clarifying that the EU itself will not be implementing this technology. What individual countries do is not up to the EU parliment.
- eufandom 7y ago
  Except when it comes to mass migration, human rights to protect terrorists, bureaucracy and other useless measures. Tuen the eu suddenly forgets about subsidiarity and moreover it bullies nations into submission.
- eufandom 7y ago
  It doesnt really, european countries are frequently bullied into submission. I.e. allowing 1 million undocumented aliens in, bureaucracy and all other things the far left of HN will flag. It will, without doubt, collapse die to the opposite of allowing countries do what they see fit for their own citizen safety.
  - bilekas 7y ago
    > I.e. allowing 1 million undocumented aliens in Human rights and trying to be decent to people fleeing wars is now a bad thing ? Also collectively agreeing to help these people.. Collectively. Countries can have their own policies. What Bullying are you talking about ?? I will refer to my previous statement as it seems some people don't really understand how the EU works. The EU is a memebership of collective countries, not some all powerfull entity of controlling its memebers and telling them what to do. > collapse die to the opposite of allowing countries do what they see fit for their own citizen safety You don't really get it, but please believe what you like. I'm going to take a stab and say you're pro-brexit too ?
    - eufandom 7y ago
      Not at all, it’s a good thung. But not chaotically and at that scale. Also not by bullying countries which already have helped pretty much all countries where such issues happen. It seeks like you still think the eu is an equal memberships club - germany issued a diktat, all others had better obeyed it, or else... I am against brexit and pro reform. The EU is dated and operates through bully power. If it doesnt reform it will collapse. Critique from within is what can actually prevent its collapse. If people dont want mass migration, or whatever they strongly oppose then the eu better take it into account, or else there will be no eu to do all the good it can do even without chaos. People like you who strongly oppose reform and blindly believe the eu is perfection is what pushes even those that want reform into the camps of brexit and the far right. Seems like there is no more middle ground. A shame really.
      - bilekas 7y ago
        > People like you who strongly oppose reform and blindly believe the eu is perfection I don't think it's perfect, in fact I don't know of any system thats perfect, but how it operates in pricipal is okay, and how that reform and improvement is done could be quicker but I'm not going to claim it's going to collapse. The single market is the main selling point of the EU. Not imigration control, those issues are state decided. IE by the respective members. > germany issued a diktat, all others had better obeyed it, or else... What are you refering to ? Genuinely, what has been adopted by members that was not agreed to and has hurt their citizens ?
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Countries are supposed to implement the directives but some countries play fast and loose in how they implement directives. eg TUPE (employment law) is quite different in Spain Vs the UK
  - bilekas 7y ago
    It is true some members dont always play by the rules, even something as significant as GDPR has questionable implementation coverage even in Belgium. I know myself Ireland has some questionable Tax issues which dont really help the other countries get a fair playing field. Enforcement is an issue, it wasnt really imagined that you would agree to something as a group and then walk away and say : "Well forget that".
- lprd 7y ago
  Interesting. I've been living in France for about 8 years now (I'm a US expat) and I really need to understand more about the EU's functions and abilities. I understand that there are different legislative bodies of Europe, but not sure how each applies. Do you have any material to help educate me on the subject? Thanks for the insight!
  - bilekas 7y ago
    https://europa.eu/european-union/law_en https://europa.eu/european-union/law_en The europa.eu site has ever piece of information available, it can be a bit wordy and legal but there is usually references to bodies and the precedents they have taken etc.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    > I understand that there are different legislative bodies of Europe, but not sure how each applies. As a very crude analogy with the US, you could view EU parliament as federal government and country parliaments (and governments) as state governments. Laws at the EU level are applicable to all countries, but individual countries have a lot of leeway in in implementation, enforcement and their own laws (as long as the don't contradict EU laws).
    - simion314 7y ago
      >As a very crude analogy with the US, you could view EU parliament as federal government and country parliaments (and governments) as state governments. I think this is not correct because from what I know in US you don't ever need unanimity to pass federal laws but let me know if I am wrong.
      - dmitriid 7y ago
        That's why it's a crude analogy :) The devil is in the details, as always.
AsusFan 7y ago
Did you read the article at all? The European Union is already planning to introduce a temporary ban on facial recognition in public spaces - PRECISELY because the technology is being rolled out throughout European cities without first assessing the impact on rights such as privacy. The story is about a leaked draft of a plan to introduce the same technology on the parliament itself - which would be inconsistent with the previous point. I don't see any hypocrisy here.
- weystrom 7y ago
  > The story is about a leaked draft of a plan to introduce the same technology on the parliament itself I did, and that's what I mean. They don't want it in the parliament and yet the subway station I use every day has facial recognition system in place, there is even a sign that says "it's for your safety". I'll believe in a ban when they'll take it down.
  - AsusFan 7y ago
    What part of "The European commission is expected to announce the ban this month, covering the use of the technology in stations, stadiums and shopping centres and lasting three to five years, to allow regulators time to assess the impact of the fast-developing technology." is confusing you? If you had followed the links, you'd know that there is a draft for the ban circulating since at least early January, and is due to come into effect sometime in February. Again: this is being rushed through precisely because of behaviors such as the one you describe. I fail to understand what there is to be outraged about here. Your exact complaint is in the process of being addressed (assuming you live in the EU).
    - izzydata 7y ago
      I get the impression he is saying it would have never been an issue for them if it wasn't ever going to be implemented at parliament specifically. It was not an issue to use it on every body else. If they could get away with it they would probably ban it from being used on themselves and continue to implement it everywhere else.

raxxorrax 7y ago

It is good to see that large scale surveillance is rejected. But I know it is important to stay vigilant. The EU certainly has an ambition to be more attractive as a location for tech, but I think surveillance and security technologies have a high amount of grifters and should not be encouraged.

piokoch 7y ago
No it is not rejected. This is only about EU parliament building. In fact, I would like facial recognition to be used over there, so we know which EU MP is meeting which lobbyists, for me this is would be a legitimate usecase of such technology.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  It certainly makes more sense to employ surveillance on officials instead of the whole public, but I would be cautious as well. Achieving transparency requires meticulous checks whereas video cameras only serve as a cheap distraction. Neither public servants nor lobbyists would be stupid enough to be affected, same goes for criminals for that matter, and while I do think that public figures need to make concessions to their privacy in some cases, it doesn't have to be unnecessarily excessive.
- iso1210 7y ago
  I'd rather we had a well funded press that could apply journalistic skills to uncovering the truth
chrisseaton 7y ago
> It is good to see that large scale surveillance is rejected. Where in this article do you see a rejection of large scale surveillance?
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  In that they will have severe problems in justifying or even allowing this kind of surveillance for anything, since they themselves don't want to be subjected to it. It is pretty important since it acknowledges that there can be rejection of it without stating any reason. For now, I am very happy with that. But as I said, vigilance is still necessary.

the-dude 7y ago

One could interpret this headline as 'misleading' : The parliament is not speaking on general policy, but only on the application of the technology on themselves ( the MEPs ).

chank 7y ago

Been through an airport in the EU or going to the EU lately?

bilekas 7y ago
That's not up to the EU. Thats up to the individual countries. The EU is a memebership of collective countries, not some all powerfull entity of controlling its memebers and telling them what to do.. It's not the same as the US federal system.
- matthewmacleod 7y ago
  That is true, but it’s also the case that EU countries agree to collective rule-making in some cases. If the member states agree, following the established process, that facial recognition should be disallowed throughout the EU then that’s something that can totally happen. Just like GDPR.
  - bilekas 7y ago
    All member states would need to agree to implement the banning of facial recognition for it to be effective. Again this is a descision which the members must agree to. And it is certainly possible. But there is not 1 entity who decides for all members.
- gdhbcc 7y ago
  How about all the mass surveillance programs the EU has been funding for decades that do use facial recognition?
  - Quanttek 7y ago
    What mass surveillance programs has the EU (not individual member states, like the UK or Germany) been funding "for decades"? The EU doesn't even have an intelligence service. The only entity I could be thinking about is Frontex.
- tremon 7y ago

sebow 7y ago

Good clickbait. The EU will eventually force countries to use facial recognition, give it 5 years tops.

josephagoss 7y ago

Whereas Australia has blown right through the discussion and enabled facial recognition without public discourse. I just found out a close suburb (East Perth) has 30-60 government run facial recognition cameras being installed with this being pushed this year to the entire Perth city area. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/face-tracking-technology-rolled-out-across-east-perth/10636476 https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/face-tracking-tech... There is a reason Australia is the guinea pig of the western nations for erosion of rights and privacy tests to see how far we can be contained and pushed. Because Australians are the most passive of all peoples across the world and are historically the easiest population to control. But once the five eyes work out their tech and policy here they will push it out to the rest of the world. We are the control group. https://www.afr.com/technology/five-eyes-fears-rise-over-aussie-encryption-laws-20190221-h1bj6f https://www.afr.com/technology/five-eyes-fears-rise-over-aus... Australia’s population is so passive that we have passed extremely terrifying laws that now the five eyes use to bypass their own countries laws. Australia today. UK and USA tomorrow.

pzumk 7y ago

, yet.

kaazhan 7y ago

I does not mean there is no facial recognition deployed. I live in Marseille, France, and facial recognition is currently beeing deployey all over the city. In fact, not only facial recognition, but posture recognition, walk recognition, etc. Marseille and Nice are two test-towns for global french deployment...