{"id":22108,"date":"2022-12-08T23:23:38","date_gmt":"2022-12-08T23:23:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/12\/08\/italy-bans-facial-recognition-tech-except-for-cops\/"},"modified":"2022-12-08T23:23:38","modified_gmt":"2022-12-08T23:23:38","slug":"italy-bans-facial-recognition-tech-except-for-cops","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/12\/08\/italy-bans-facial-recognition-tech-except-for-cops\/","title":{"rendered":"Italy Bans Facial Recognition Tech\u2026 Except For Cops"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n
<\/p>\n

\n

from the not-much-of-a-ban-then,-is-it<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

In March, the Italian government not-so-politely asked Clearview to leave, bestowing upon the toxic facial recognition tech company a $21 million fine<\/a> as a parting gift. Citing the company\u2019s, um, clear violations of the GDPR, the government added to the tab<\/a> Clearview has racked up in Europe<\/a>, now surpassing $50 million.<\/p>\n

The company, of course, denied all wrongdoing or liability, stating it does not do business in any of the countries in which it had been fined. But that\u2019s hardly the point. The point is Clearview\u2019s webscraping affects everyone everywhere, no matter where Clearview actually offers access to its multi-billion image database<\/a> or its facial recognition AI. The laws were still violated<\/a>, even if Clearview had never physically set foot in those countries.<\/p>\n

European governments are paying more attention to facial recognition tech these days. The European Union has some pretty strong privacy laws which make carefree deployments of facial recognition tech \u2014 especially by private parties \u2014 almost impossible. But, like everywhere in the world, European citizens are raising concerns about pervasive surveillance tech<\/a>, something that becomes much more worrying when it turns people going about their day-to-day business into little more than data points in massive government collections.<\/p>\n

The ban currently in effect in Italy is a bit weird, though. It seemingly forbids use by everyone, including government entities, but contains a massive loophole that would make law enforcement entities the only<\/em> ones permitted to use the \u201cbanned\u201d tech<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Italy prohibited the use of facial recognition and \u2018smart glasses\u2019 on Monday as its Data Protection Agency issued a rebuke to two municipalities experimenting with the technologies.<\/em><\/p>\n

Facial recognition systems using biometric data will not be allowed until a specific law is adopted or at least until the end of next year, the privacy watchdog said<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The exception is when such technologies play a role in judicial investigations or the fight against crime.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yeah, that\u2019s a pretty big exception. And it\u2019s really weird because the prohibition was seemingly prompted by law enforcement\u2019s planned use of the tech. <\/p>\n

\n

The agency was reacting to measures taken in the southern Italian city of Lecce, where authorities said they would begin using a technology based on facial recognition.<\/em><\/p>\n

[\u2026]<\/em><\/p>\n

The privacy watchdog also targeted the Tuscan city of Arezzo, where local police were due to be equipped with infrared super glasses that can recognise car number plates<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Reuters report doesn\u2019t provide details on what Lecce\u2019s facial recognition plans entailed, but one imagines the word \u201cauthorities\u201d also covers local law enforcement officials. And while the second incident refers only to \u201csuper glasses\u201d with built-in plate recognition, presumably the goal is to add facial recognition tech to the eyewear in the future. <\/p>\n

And it\u2019s not really a ban. I mean, it\u2019s obviously not a ban when law enforcement still has basically on-demand access to facial recognition tech. But the Data Protection Agency refers to this as a \u201cmoratorium\u201d that simply pauses facial recognition use while the government figures out how to best regulate it.<\/p>\n

Still, there\u2019s an outside chance a meaningful ban that covers law enforcement deployment could be put in place. As Thomas Macaulay reports for The Next Web<\/a>, one Italian lawmaker wants something wider reaching and far more permanent put in place.<\/p>\n

\n

Last week, Brando Benifei, an Italian\u00a0MEP and Co-Rapporter of the AI Act, called for the EU\u2019s new regulation\u00a0to include an outright ban<\/a>\u00a0on biometric mass surveillance<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cToday there are two different loopholes in the \u2018ban\u2019 proposed by the Commission: private spaces and \u2018ex-post\u2019 recognition are not covered, but there are also exceptions regarding some criminal investigations and prosecutions,\u201d he said. \u201cWe should \u2014 and I will do my best to \u2014 have a complete ban in the Parliament.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This development will be worth keeping an eye on, especially once the exception to the ban starts getting some use. Pretty much everything law enforcement does can be described as \u201cinvestigatory\u201d or \u201cfighting crime.\u201d Until this exemption is refined or restricted meaningfully, this ban will have almost zero effect on use of the tech by Italian law enforcement agencies.<\/p>\n

\nFiled Under: data protection agency<\/a>, facial recognition<\/a>, italy<\/a>, police<\/a>, privacy<\/a>, surveillance<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n