{"id":6627,"date":"2021-04-19T10:49:39","date_gmt":"2021-04-19T10:49:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greens-efa.eu\/dossier\/?p=6627"},"modified":"2021-09-23T12:33:23","modified_gmt":"2021-09-23T12:33:23","slug":"why-we-must-stop-biometric-surveillance-in-the-eu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greens-efa.eu\/dossier\/why-we-must-stop-biometric-surveillance-in-the-eu\/","title":{"rendered":"Why we must stop biometric surveillance in the EU"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Patrick Breyer<\/a>, Greens\/EFA MEP, in conversation with Ella Jakubowska (EDRi)<\/h3>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
\n

19.04.2021<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"Surveillance<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n

EDRi (the European Digital Rights network) has launched a European Citizen’s Initiative calling for a ban on the use of biometric mass surveillance in public spaces. How could these technologies affect the lives of everyday people?<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Ella Jakubowska\n(EDRi):<\/strong> Everyone\u2019s\ndaily lives risk being affected by biometric mass surveillance technologies in\npublic spaces. Take the example of going to your doctor to get a prescription\nfor some medicine, and then to a pharmacy to pick it up. It\u2019s your right to be\nable to do this with respect for your privacy \u2013 it\u2019s your health, after all. Or,\nlet\u2019s say your kid goes to a protest about something that they feel\npassionately about, such as the global climate emergency.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

With public facial recognition, governments or corporations could be\ntracking these activities without your consent or even your knowledge. Despite\nit being none of their business, they could keep records of what you are doing,\nwhere you are going and who you are meeting. They\u2019re treating you as if you are\nsuspicious just for going about your daily life. Your kid\u2019s face could be\ncaptured and used in the future to mark them out as a \u2018troublemaker\u2019, which\ncould influence their education and job prospects. This isn\u2019t just hypothetical:\npolice in France, Slovenia and the UK are all using biometrics to monitor\nlegitimate protesters despite not having a legal justification for doing so.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

This sort of \u2018Minority Report\u2019 future is unimaginable – which is why we need to act today to ban biometric mass\nsurveillance practices<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Patrick Breyer\n(Greens\/EFA):<\/strong>These technologies are also flawed and\ninaccurate. We\u2019ve already seen innocent citizens routinely reported to the\npolice because the technology gets it wrong. They have the potential to change\nour societies fundamentally. Surveillance methods based on the analysis of our\nindividual body characteristics, such as facial features or movement patterns,\nturn us into walking barcodes that can be scanned anytime and anywhere. And\nthere is little to no escape: while traditional digital surveillance is\nattached to your mobile devices, you cannot leave your face at home to escape\nbiometric monitoring.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Automated detection of our behaviour,\ni.e., the way we walk, talk or look, will eventually cause us to adapt the way\nwe act in public spaces. This form of self-censorship has already been reported\nfrom countries like Serbia, where the government started to roll out a massive\nbiometric surveillance project throughout its capital city, Belgrade. We have\nheard reports from citizens refraining to participate in protests criticising\nthe government because they were afraid that their faces might end up in police\ndatabases. <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Feeling forced to adapt our behaviour\nis a violation of our fundamental rights and is bound to intensify with the\nincrease of inescapable biometric surveillance of public spaces. Surveillance,\ndistrust and fear may gradually transform our society into one in which\ncitizens are afraid to be different. Where we\u2019re scared of each other. Where we\ndon\u2019t dare to disagree. Where privacy is treated with suspicion because we\nshould have \u201cnothing to hide\u201d. This is not the strong and diverse society we\nwant to live in. We cannot be prepared to give up our freedoms in the name of\ngaining a little \u201csecurity\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"Close<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n

In what way has the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for a ban on these technologies?<\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n

Ella Jakubowska\n(EDRi):<\/strong>\nUnfortunately \u2013 but not surprisingly \u2013 many governments and corporations have\nexploited the pandemic to expand surveillance infrastructures and collect vast\ntroves of sensitive data in ways that would never have been allowed before.\nThis will have a huge impact on all of our lives for years to come. Legitimate\npublic health concerns have been exploited to introduce unnecessary biometric\nidentification tools like facial recognition in public spaces and creepy drone\nsurveillance. In their rush to find quick solutions, governments are forgetting\nthat data about our bodies, our faces and our identities needs the highest\nlevels of protection.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

The whole point of \u201cemergency\u201d responses is that they need to be limited\nto that emergency. In fact, we need our human rights to be protected even more\nstringently during a crisis because that\u2019s when they are most vulnerable to\nabuse. The picture we have seen across Europe in response to the corona crisis\nhas been the opposite. The Polish government, for example, used facial recognition\nin their app to monitor quarantine, which allowed them to gather sensitive and\nrevealing biometric data about large swathes of the population.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Patrick Breyer (Greens\/EFA):<\/strong> <\/strong>We have seen the use of face surveillance to\nlook for quarantine offenders. This demonstrates that once the technology is\nestablished its use would continuously be expanded. Ultimately, our every\nmovement could be tracked.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"Surveillance<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n

Studies show that many of the technologies used are biased and can cause discrimination. What effect could their use have on societies and individuals\u2019 rights?<\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n

Ella Jakubowska (EDRi):<\/strong> We know that facial recognition <\/a>is a fundamentally racist technology, and its use in the US has led to a series of highly-publicised and traumatic false arrests of men of colour. Its use in the US has led to a series of highly-publicised and traumatic false arrests of men of colour. The crux of the problem is how the use of biometric mass surveillance technologies can amplify and codify underlying inequalities and discrimination in our societies. The European Network Against Racism, for example, have reported how data-driven policing is exacerbating already discriminatory policing practices in Europe<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

By definition, these technologies are designed to differentiate between\npeople: who is \u2018normal\u2019 compared to who is not. Who fits into stereotypical\nboxes of gender and who does not? Who walks in an \u2018odd\u2019 way? Anyone that does\nnot conform to this arbitrary, technologically imposed standard will be marked\nout as deviant or weird. In practice, communities that already face the highest\nlevels of societal discrimination, such as people with disabilities, people of\ncolour, homeless people, and trans and non-binary people will be the most\nharmed. Our report, Ban Biometric\nMass Surveillance<\/a>, has shown that pretty much every single human\nright can be violated as a result.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Patrick Breyer\n(Greens\/EFA):<\/strong> Many\npeople consider technology as being objective by default. The common assumption\nis that machines act neutrally, while humans are subject to error-prone biases\nthat might impact objective decision-making. But this is not the case.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

First\nof all, the algorithms that power biometric surveillance technologies are\ndeveloped by humans who are inherently biased based on the way they have been\nsocialized. Secondly, these algorithms are \u2018trained\u2019 to identify faces based on\nmillions of pictures that were shown to them. These training data sets predominantly\ncontain images of white males. Many studies have shown that people with darker\nskin tones, and particularly non-white females, are systematically\nmisidentified<\/a> by facial recognition\ntechnologies. The same goes for trans or non-binary people.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

However, as Ella pointed out, it is not only the bias built into the\nalgorithms that facilitates discrimination, but the ways in which they are\napplied. The use of facial recognition technologies and other forms of\nbiometric surveillance is legitimized by allegedly enhancing the security of\nour public spaces. This means that communities that are already heavily\nmonitored, such as migrant communities, will become subject to even greater\nsurveillance.  <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Vulnerable groups and minorities must be fully and actively involved in leading\nthe campaign to ban biometric mass surveillance. It is our responsibility to listen\nto, strengthen and support the voices of those communities.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"Wall<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n

Why is it urgent that we act now?<\/h4>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n

Ella Jakubowska\n(EDRi):<\/strong> In April,\nthe European Commission is going to propose new laws on the use of facial\nrecognition and other biometric technologies as part of their plans to regulate\nartificial intelligence across the EU. It is not often that we get the chance\nto bring in laws to stop the harmful use of technologies before <\/em>they become completely\nembedded in our streets and city centers.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

The European Citizens\u2019 Initiative (ECI)\nlaunched by <\/a>the <\/a>Reclaim Your Fac<\/a>e campaign<\/a> gives us, as EU nationals, a\nrare chance to make our voices heard in policy debates that can often seem\nremote and not applicable to people\u2019s lives. Biometric mass surveillance is\nsomething that will impact each of us, our friends, and our families. This ECI\ngives us the chance to speak up for our communities, and also in solidarity\nwith people that are not EU nationals but will be the most harmed by this tech.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

We have an opportunity now to call for genuine, positive change. We\u2019re\ntrying to raise awareness about why this is not just a decision for lawmakers\nin the conference rooms of Brussels \u2013 but for everyone that cares about\nprotecting a democratic society.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Patrick Breyer (Greens\/EFA):<\/strong>\nAs a long-standing activist for civil liberties, and particularly for our right\nto privacy, I have witnessed a number of worrying transformations of our\nsocieties based on opening a Pandora\u2019s box of surveillance technology. Once new\ntechnologies are put in place \u2013 almost always under the guise of strengthening\ncitizens\u2019 security \u2013 their exceptional use soon becomes the norm. In other\nwords, as soon as we allow biometric surveillance technologies to be released\nupon our public spaces, there is no going back. We will not be able to control\nthe expansion. We have witnessed this phenomenon with other technologies, such\nas CCTV and the tracking of mobile phones.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

While the United States has never\nbeen known for championing data protection and a right to privacy, there is now\na public debate and facial recognition technologies are being banned in many\nplaces in the US. A nation-wide ban on the use facial recognition technologies\nfor policing is currently being discussed in the US Congress. <\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

In the European Union, however, the European\nCommission has not proposed such a legislative ban and seems to be unwilling to\ndo so \u2013 even though it is well aware of the dangers that come with these\ntechnologies: The Commission has classified biometric surveillance as a\n\u2018high-risk\u2019 technology that might have a highly dangerous impact on our\nfundamental rights. At the same time, Commission officials have told us that,\naccording to the results of a consultation of stakeholders, only a small\nminority would favor a ban of biometric surveillance technologies. This is how\nthey will probably justify not proposing a ban. The civil society campaign \u2018Reclaim Your Face\u2019\nand a representative poll we commissioned will prove them wrong.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Parallel to this Citizens\u2019 Initiative, the Greens\/EFA Group in the\nEuropean Parliament has started a campaign to push the Commission to propose a\nban of biometric surveillance technologies in public spaces. With a series of\n(online) events, videos, studies, conferences and a soon-to-be released videogame,\nwe aim to raise awareness of the dangers that come with these technologies. <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

With the united force of these campaigns, one initiated by the civil\nsociety and one rooted within the European Parliament itself, we have a very\nunique chance to pressure the European Commission into safeguarding our\nfundamental rights and to propose a ban on these highly intrusive technologies.\n<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

\ud83d\udc49 We need at least a million signatures for the European Citizens Initiative. \ud83d\udc48<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

\ud83d\udc49 So, sign our initiative now and #reclaimyourface!<\/a> \ud83d\udc48<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\n