4 ms·

Not a lawyer here but it seems that there are exceptions carved out: In particular, we ask the Commission to prohibit, in law and in practice, indiscriminate o

Not a lawyer here but it seems that there are exceptions carved out: In particular, we ask the Commission to prohibit, in law and in practice, indiscriminate or arbitrarily-targeted uses of biometrics which can lead to unlawful mass surveillance. - So long as it is discriminate and non-arbitrary that can be ok then? We have seen so many legal justifications and equivocations to laws from the surveillance state that I now assume legal counsel will always find a way to break the prima facie law. German intelligence broke many German laws with the NSA, while Merkel virtue signaled and decried the NSA (comparing them to the Stasi) and Obama spying on her. https://www.dw.com/en/edward-snowden-germany-a-primary-example-of-nsa-surveillance-cooperation/a-50452863 https://www.dw.com/en/edward-snowden-germany-a-primary-examp... https://www.dw.com/en/danish-secret-service-helped-us-spy-on-germanys-angela-merkel-report/a-57721901 https://www.dw.com/en/danish-secret-service-helped-us-spy-on... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/merkel-compares-nsa-stasi-obama https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/merkel-compare...

mschuster91 5y ago
To quote the original from the Koalitionsvertrag (https://www.tagesschau.de/koalitionsvertrag-147.pdf https://www.tagesschau.de/koalitionsvertrag-147.pdf): > Biometrische Erkennung im öffentlichen Raum sowie automatisierte staatliche Scoring Systeme durch KI sind europarechtlich auszuschließen (page 19) Translated: Biometric recognition in public spaces as well as AI-based, automated scoring systems ran by governments are to be prohibited by European law. > Flächendeckende Videoüberwachung und den Einsatz von biometrischer Erfassung zu Überwachungszwecken lehnen wir ab Translated: We refuse widespread video surveillance as well as usage of biometric recognition for surveillance purposes. To summarize: Using biometrics or other technology for surveillance, particularly any attempt to recreate China's Social Credit Score, is banned. The exception in the English text is to allow biometric measures for identification (e.g. passports) and access control.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  > Biometric recognition in public spaces ... are to be prohibited by European law. That's ok but an exception for law enforcement and national security would be useful. This technology is a tool, like all technologies, and as such it may be used positively or negatively. For instance, here in the UK we have automatic plate recognition cameras that are used to track uninsured or wanted cars. In the same spirit it might be useful to have similar cameras operated by the police to match people with a database of wanted or missing people (with only matches stored and reported for further investigation). Now this may not not work very well yet, there may be caveats and procedures to develop, etc but IMHO this means we should work on it and see if it can become useful rather than killing it off completely so early by having a blanket ban. In any case, individual member states can draw their own laws on this. On a side note, the wording in English might give the impression that the German government decides EU law...
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I think the prevalence of CCTV in the UK warrants skepticism about its effectiveness as the UK doesn't necessarily have better crime numbers than comparable countries. I know video surveillance is mostly available in hot spots, but for me it is certainly uncomfortable to be under scrutiny constantly and it isn't something I would want to get used to as it does not provide significant benefits.
  - gmueckl 5y ago
    Exceptions for law enforcement have proven to be a very slippery slope in the past. Police is constantly trying to erode restrictions around tools that are only available for serious crimes and unfortunately also has a record of successfully circumventing any access checks for surveillance tools that have been put in place by lawmakers. There is constant and incessant lobbying from these circles to get more surveillance in place. But, when pressed, no one can point to cases where this actually helped. The only realistic way to counter this is to say no to surveillance technology from the start.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Additionally we als have a dark security IT that makes good cash with dubious security solutions. Getting rid of that again will be difficult.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      I think that if the people see the government and especially the police as the enemy then society has a bigger problem than surveillance technology. Of course, there should be checks, controls, limitations placed upon those institutions, and transparency in their workings. But the police is here to protect and serve the community, at least it should be, not to oppress it. I've noticed that this is a difference in the way the police is often seen in Europe vs. in the UK for instance.
      - mschuster91 5y ago
        > But the police is here to protect and serve the community, at least it should be, not to oppress it. The key question when the phrase "protect and serve the community" comes up is "which community?" and the answer is: it primarily serves the interest of the rich and powerful. If you are poor, not in the majority ethnic or in any other way not "mainstream", you have shit times ahead of you. No matter the country, the only difference between a cop in the US and a cop in the UK is better training and less reliance on guns. Homeless, being a person of color, being LGBT, protesting the government (especially from the left wing) - all common risk factors for adverse interactions with police. If you never have had a negative interaction with police, ask yourself why and prepare for an answer you likely would not have liked to hear.

mschuster91 5y ago

To quote the original from the Koalitionsvertrag (https://www.tagesschau.de/koalitionsvertrag-147.pdf https://www.tagesschau.de/koalitionsvertrag-147.pdf): > Biometrische Erkennung im öffentlichen Raum sowie automatisierte staatliche Scoring Systeme durch KI sind europarechtlich auszuschließen (page 19) Translated: Biometric recognition in public spaces as well as AI-based, automated scoring systems ran by governments are to be prohibited by European law. > Flächendeckende Videoüberwachung und den Einsatz von biometrischer Erfassung zu Überwachungszwecken lehnen wir ab Translated: We refuse widespread video surveillance as well as usage of biometric recognition for surveillance purposes. To summarize: Using biometrics or other technology for surveillance, particularly any attempt to recreate China's Social Credit Score, is banned. The exception in the English text is to allow biometric measures for identification (e.g. passports) and access control.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
> Biometric recognition in public spaces ... are to be prohibited by European law. That's ok but an exception for law enforcement and national security would be useful. This technology is a tool, like all technologies, and as such it may be used positively or negatively. For instance, here in the UK we have automatic plate recognition cameras that are used to track uninsured or wanted cars. In the same spirit it might be useful to have similar cameras operated by the police to match people with a database of wanted or missing people (with only matches stored and reported for further investigation). Now this may not not work very well yet, there may be caveats and procedures to develop, etc but IMHO this means we should work on it and see if it can become useful rather than killing it off completely so early by having a blanket ban. In any case, individual member states can draw their own laws on this. On a side note, the wording in English might give the impression that the German government decides EU law...
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I think the prevalence of CCTV in the UK warrants skepticism about its effectiveness as the UK doesn't necessarily have better crime numbers than comparable countries. I know video surveillance is mostly available in hot spots, but for me it is certainly uncomfortable to be under scrutiny constantly and it isn't something I would want to get used to as it does not provide significant benefits.
- gmueckl 5y ago
  Exceptions for law enforcement have proven to be a very slippery slope in the past. Police is constantly trying to erode restrictions around tools that are only available for serious crimes and unfortunately also has a record of successfully circumventing any access checks for surveillance tools that have been put in place by lawmakers. There is constant and incessant lobbying from these circles to get more surveillance in place. But, when pressed, no one can point to cases where this actually helped. The only realistic way to counter this is to say no to surveillance technology from the start.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Additionally we als have a dark security IT that makes good cash with dubious security solutions. Getting rid of that again will be difficult.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    I think that if the people see the government and especially the police as the enemy then society has a bigger problem than surveillance technology. Of course, there should be checks, controls, limitations placed upon those institutions, and transparency in their workings. But the police is here to protect and serve the community, at least it should be, not to oppress it. I've noticed that this is a difference in the way the police is often seen in Europe vs. in the UK for instance.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      > But the police is here to protect and serve the community, at least it should be, not to oppress it. The key question when the phrase "protect and serve the community" comes up is "which community?" and the answer is: it primarily serves the interest of the rich and powerful. If you are poor, not in the majority ethnic or in any other way not "mainstream", you have shit times ahead of you. No matter the country, the only difference between a cop in the US and a cop in the UK is better training and less reliance on guns. Homeless, being a person of color, being LGBT, protesting the government (especially from the left wing) - all common risk factors for adverse interactions with police. If you never have had a negative interaction with police, ask yourself why and prepare for an answer you likely would not have liked to hear.