
EU considers temporary ban on facial recognition in public spaces - doener
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ai/eu-mulls-five-year-ban-on-facial-recognition-tech-in-public-areas-idUSKBN1ZF2QL
======
simongray
> EU digital and antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager is expected to present her
> proposals next month.

She has been such a force in the European Union during her short time in the
Commission. I'm glad she's still spearheading stuff like this even if she
didn't become president like some thought she would when Macron started
promoting her.

The funny thing is that she was also officially second in command when she was
in the Danish coalition government a decade ago, but somehow the government's
official policies were much closer to _her_ party's ideology (Social Liberal)
than the ideology of the much bigger Social Democratic party that they were in
a coalition with.

------
netcan
Yet another big example, where tech literacy is probably a barrier to getting
good policy. Layered onto the bureaucratic & political challenges that
_always_ apply to rule making...

There are two operative components: cameras & software. They don't need to be
on the same device or used by the same person. Increasingly, if the cameras
exist, the "data" is likely to go through software at some point.

Facebook, Apple, Google or whatnot... they do facial recognition & other
classification by default. Any publicly available pictures can be crawled &
analysed by aggregators... or whoever wants to. Most people use services that
analyse image content, make images public, or both.

These aren't just theoretical loopholes. There are tons and tons of private
cameras out there. These will continue to "do facial recognition," or lead to
it.

This can probably only be a ban on certain users: police... maybe some classes
of regulatable businesses. This might be ok, but I don't get the impression
decision makers know this.

~~~
surak
Check the EDPB opinion that was released recently. It states quite clearly
what can bu done.

------
_iyig
Does anyone else think total bans on this technology are excessive? Why not
enact strict controls on the collection and use of face/location data, yet
still leave room for obviously useful applications like (for instance) arrest
warrant subject recognition at bus stops, airports, train stations, etc.?

It just seems ridiculous to have officers scanning CCTV for the FBI's Most
Wanted when algorithms could effectively and responsibly assist them.

~~~
try_again
Having the means in place for total surveillance and thinking it will be kept
in check with "strict control" is a total delusion. Who determines what
constitutes proper grounds for using the captured data? The government, I
suppose? And if you want to automatically recognize certain individuals it
must by design mean everyone gets scanned.

~~~
_iyig
We have nuclear weapons, but only certain people are allowed to use them. The
IANA has root key-signing keys, but their use is strictly controlled and made
highly transparent. If we approach facial recognition technology with an equal
sense of caution and respect, I’m sure we can (for example) help police catch
rapists, murderers, and child-abductors without building or maintaining a
database of every innocent citizen’s movements.

------
Barrin92
I sincerely hope it happens. I'm tired of seeing privacy eroded in the name of
safety and I hope nobody falls for the "we need to keep up with the US and
China" argument that is inevitably going to be brought forward.

We don't need to compete with others on technologies whose primary purpose is
diminishing the rights of our own citizens, that's not an arms race we need to
be part of and it seems to be increasingly the rhetoric tech companies adopt
as well.

One piece that I read recently that I found particularly disturbing talked
about aerial surveillance of US cities.

[https://longreads.com/2019/06/21/nothing-kept-me-up-at-
night...](https://longreads.com/2019/06/21/nothing-kept-me-up-at-night-the-
way-the-gorgon-stare-did/)

~~~
Aperocky
> we need to keep up with the US and China

In all of human history, as soon as people get fed, they turn into a group
dick measuring contest. Well meaning people who are totally nice starts waving
the banners at the sidelines. Politicians dress up impeccably and speak
beautiful language at the center stage - to conduct this dick measuring
contest.

One of the big reason I like computers and software is that it seemed to be
borne out of genuine interest than out of dick waving necessity.

~~~
badpun
> One of the big reason I like computers and software is that it seemed to be
> borne out of genuine interest than out of dick waving necessity.

Couple of observations:

1\. Large amounts of open source projects which seem to ego-driven (i.e. done
not to provide genuine improvement, but done for amusement and promotion of
the author).

2\. Same for conference appearances (speaking at a conference to be able to
say one spoke at a conference).

3\. Commercial software in sorry state in order to maximize company profits,
i.e. increase dick size of the owners.

It's impossible to escape our nature, no matter what field.

~~~
blowski
I speak at conferences so that I can say I speak at conferences so that I can
earn more so that I can afford to pay for my kids to go to university. Does
that make me a dick?

------
nfoz
Here's a weird request: any video-recording device, when activated (shooting
or ready to shoot), should be required to emit a low-power radio signal. So
your own device (e.g. cellphone) can listen for that signal and let you know
what is recording you and from where.

Maybe it's silly or infeasible but I'd be curious where that could lead.
Consider that in some cultures you're not allowed to film/photograph people in
public without their consent. So this is a small step toward a technological
infrastructure that could enable that social convention.

~~~
ChuckNorris89
_> Consider that in some cultures you're not allowed to film/photograph people
in public without their consent. _

That's the exact case in Austria and it's not always a good thing though as
most of the times it ends up protecting the wrong doers.

For example as a cyclist you're not allowed to use a dash/action camera
because you'd be taping people without their consent so if you get hit by a
car and have no witnesses then it's your word against his in court and who can
afford the more expensive lawyers.

If you did use an action cam to tape the accident then the driver's lawyers
could have the footage dismissed as it was obtained without his consent and he
could even sue you and ask compensation for it. Sad world.

Austria just got Google Street View last year as the previous strict privacy
laws that were blocking this were relaxed.

~~~
ISL
Wow, Austrian law is really different!

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Austria)

[https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-
austr...](https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-austria)

------
jonplackett
Yet another reason why I’m sad the UK is leaving the EU.

I believe we also have the most CCTV cameras per person in the world - or at
least we’re the ‘most watched’ by sone other measure.

~~~
johneth
> I believe we also have the most CCTV cameras per person in the world

Bear in mind that the _vast_ majority of those cameras are privately-owned
(i.e. shops, homes, etc.), not operated by the state.

~~~
borjamoya
Sometimes it's hard to tell where the line is, isn't it?

~~~
johneth
Not really, no. If it's in a shop, it'll be operated by the shop. If it's in a
supermarket car park, it'll be operated by the supermarket. If it's in a
public park, pedestrianised street, or government building, it'll be state-
operated.

------
im3w1l
I'm not really sure where I stand on this, but I'm starting to fear the "if
surveillance is outlawed only outlaws will do surveillance."

The issue I see is that surveillance is because so miniaturized and easy that
I'm not sure if it will be possible to enforce these laws against "the bad
guys".

Ideally we should deploy technological countermeasures that prevent anyone
from doing mass scale facial recognition. But failing that it may really be
better to just have a free for all.

~~~
chmod775
> "if surveillance is outlawed only outlaws will do surveillance."

This is a valid argument when speaking of encryption, but I don't see how it
makes any sense in this context.

~~~
hubert1234
Really... is it so hard to imagine? Criminal gangs can put tiny cameras
everywhere to track the police but the police cant do do the same to them.

~~~
Nextgrid
When this actually becomes a widespread problem we can revisit the ban.
Indeed, if mass-surveillance becomes so cheap that ordinary citizens can
deploy it it makes sense for police & governments to also have access to it.
Until then, don't.

~~~
bsenftner
Hate to break it to you: it is that cheap. I an looking at a $99 Intel Compute
Stick driving a build of the enterprise FR software I write, connected to a
$21 ELP IP camera. Total cost of hardware is less than $150, and the software
is of course expensive. There is no reason a button or embedded-in-a-screw
camera would not work just fine. Pandora's Box is open kids, and it is not
closing.

~~~
Nextgrid
Deploying and powering all of it at scale, not to mention getting bandwidth
(so you'd need to set up a mesh network or get very cheap mobile data) is
still out of reach of most. When _that_ is sorted we can revisit.

~~~
bsenftner
Hate to break it to you again: the cameras and connection networks are already
there. Also any real estate property of note had a traditional camera
surveillance network added sometime over the last 30 years, and modern FR
systems are designed to piggy back on them. Just add the less than $150 worth
of hardware per camera, perhaps you only need 1-2 FR systems and ability to
switch camera feeds and you're operational.

~~~
Nextgrid
The original comment was about criminal gangs setting up their own
surveillance systems to keep an eye on the police (among other things) and the
argument was that if the bad guys can do it then why not allow the police to
do it as well?

Property owners doing so on their own land is a whole different matter.

~~~
bsenftner
And criminal gangs can quite easily access these private property surveillance
networks for their tracking desires.

~~~
Nextgrid
[citation needed]

I just don't see it happening at a widespread scale yet. On the other hand if
you give police the right to use these technologies you can bet you'll see
police (and other government agencies piggybacking off them) deploying this
_everywhere_ very fast.

------
kzrdude
This isn't enough - a ban on spreading public pictures would be needed,
because otherwise it is open for anyone to mine public image sources/"open
surveillance" and running facial recognition themselves(!)

~~~
ginko
CCTV usually already has rather strict limits on what you can do with the
footage and how long you're allowed to keep it around.

~~~
superkuh
I thought that seemed rather unlikely so I searched around a bit. Apparently
it's at least partially true, [https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/data-
protection/refer...](https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/data-
protection/reference-library/video-surveillance_en)

>Although the installation of cameras might be justified for security
purposes, the timely and automatic deletion of footage is essential. The EDPS
requires all EU institutions to have clear policies regarding the use of video
surveillance on their premises including on potential storage.

------
bsenftner
This is something of a distraction from the total surveillance currently
provided by everyone carrying a mobile phone. As I read people's concerns, a
good majority of the concerns also apply to mobile phone tracking, yet that
completely globally operational and in place system is ignored?

------
walterkrankheit
In Berlin they have a voluntary facial recognition zone at one of the train
stations. Passengers can opt in and be part of the pilot program or just go
through the non-facial recognition entrance. I'm guessing most in privacy-
valuing Germany don't go through facial recognition.

~~~
majewsky
Actually, the Ministry of the Interior is seeking to get that tech from trial
into production just now:

> Germany’s Interior Minister Horst Seehofer plans to use automatic facial
> recognition at 134 railway stations and 14 airports, according to a news
> report published on 3 January.

Source: [https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-
protection/news/german...](https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-
protection/news/german-ministers-plan-to-expand-automatic-facial-recognition-
meets-fierce-criticism/)

I wonder if that's why Vestager is tackling this issue now.

------
buboard
if EU seriously considers privacy, the only tool that citizens can have is
encryption. e.g. mandate E2E on every text-messaging communication. banning
FR, while this:

> Exceptions to the ban could be made for security projects as well as
> research and development, the paper said.

Is hypocritical

------
SailingSperm
So does this mean "using facial recog. tech on video footage taken in a public
area (post capture)" OR "only banning integrated video + face recog. tech"...

Hardly seems likely they'd ban all video cameras; So sending footage off to a
remote location (possibly diff country) to process the file for faces is a
trivial side step... Would love to think there's a comprehensive solution to
this but it's a difficult thing to just say 'it's banned'.

~~~
tastroder
> Hardly seems likely they'd ban all video cameras

Maybe for reference, NAL but that's pretty much already the case here in
Germany. Save for some exceptions, that are relatively narrow (such as for law
enforcement - and even there it's not whilly nilly), you can't just legally
place video recording devices in public areas, even moreso if you don't own
that space and provide obvious notice. Sending that data off to some remote
country would be an even worse, though relatively unrelated, legal nightmare.

------
woodpanel
I can understand the impulse behind it, but just downright banning it will
mean that after 5 years they either are prolonging the ban or will have to buy
the tech from the US, China or Russia.

Even if they prolong, every tech that might be a morally less questionable
offshoot, will also come from said countries.

I think the smarter way would have been regulation, that makes its more
transparent, more controllable but keeps a window open for technology to be
developed in Europe.

~~~
kitd
There are still a load of applications for facial recognition that don't
involve use in public places. There's no reason why EU companies can't stay
involved in developing the tech.

~~~
woodpanel
That is my point though: The "load of applications for facial recognition"
doesn't need to include public space use. But nonetheless those companies that
yield the ai models out of their public place usage over five years will be
almost unbeatable.

------
OrgNet
It's one thing to limit facial recognition, but maybe those videos/pictures
should not exist in the first place?

------
blululu
Wouldn’t apple’s face unlock fall under the purview of such laws? This seems
fairly capricious since there is no real justification in relation to what the
problem is exactly. It might be better to introduce some penalties for wrong
doing before introducing an outright ban.

------
ivoras
... and at least dozens of EU startups who have drank from the Cool-Aid of
Peter Thiel cry out in anguish ...

On the one hand, it's tough to do innovative things in EU with its many rules
and regulations. OTOH, sometimes they actually protect the citizens.

------
acd
It should also include positioning and device profiling to be effective.

------
Uhuhreally
All of us are in hundreds of people's photos & videos every time we travel
through a city and then FB/Apple/Google will recognize us anyway

------
funnygrass
So as I see it is that they ban it temporarily until they can regulate it as
now it can be used wrongly. I don't think it will ever get banned for good.

------
uncle_j
The problem with this is that most public places have private places right
next to them. So this will be easily circumvented.

------
derefr
Would this include simple face _detection_ (i.e. the first-line heuristic
modern cameras use to autofocus)?

------
_trampeltier
What is "public space"? Is a trainstation public, since the operaters are all
private companys?

~~~
tumetab1
In EU/Europe usually a public space is stree common areas and all spaces when
someone can enter at their own will legally (read shops, transport systems,
cinemas, etc.).

So, anything that is not a restricted space, e.g. a manufacturing plant, is an
open space.

------
lewisj489
Off topic: Does anyone else find the font they use hard to read?

------
mam2
Is this for police too or civilian tech only ?

------
teekert
This, the GDPR and California's Bill No. 37 [0] make me feel that there is
still hope for humanity and that governments do favor civilians over
companies, at least from time to time.

[0] [https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/californias-new-privacy-
law...](https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/californias-new-privacy-law-its-
almost-gdpr-in-us-a-11149)

~~~
alessioalex
That's one of the things I like most about the EU, its strong laws in favor of
citizens (privacy, health, etc).

~~~
rocqua
The sad thing is that these progressive ideas seem to come from the ivory
tower of the EU, and are then pushed onto the member states, sometimes against
their will.

Whilst these are great ideas, this is not really democracy. I think it's also
the source of much anti EU sentiment. I wish more of this stuff would be
decided in public debates. I wish elections had more of an effect on the EU.

At the moment it feels like policy is being made by academics and beurocrats.
And whilst it is good policy, it still feels wrong. I am afraid we are keeping
it this way because we think otherwise we would have shite policy.

~~~
mrr54
>this is not really democracy

Literally every single part of the EU apparatus is democratic. Every single
bit.

The European Council consists of the Heads of Government of the EU states. If
your Head of Government isn't democratically elected then you're already
fucked and the EU isn't making anything worse.

The European Commission is chosen by the European Council, so derives its
mandate from that.

The European Parliament is literally elected.

The Council of the European Union is basically 'all the agricultural
ministers' or 'all the finance ministers' or 'all the defence ministers' etc.
Obviously these people all have democratic mandates in their home countries,
thus the body as a whole has a democratic mandate.

By no means in any way is there any possible justification for describing the
EU has undemocratic. It's actually much MORE democratic than many of its
members.

------
Xelbair
Article itself is behind paywall so i cannot comment much, but i would really
hope if such ban would be implemented that it would be permanent one, along
with other forms of tracking.

On the other hand it is EU tackling it, so we can expect something as dumb as
content filters or as good as GDPR..

EDIT: thankfully someone posted non-paywalled link :)

------
jaimex2
Good luck with that.

------
q-base
Yes, please! Stop that ridiculous surveillance. I am appalled at our minister
of justice in Denmark that seems to see every week in power as a possibility
to wreck havoc on our privacy.

~~~
Tepix
Same with the interior minister of Germany who seems to strive for total
surveillance.

~~~
ChuckNorris89
And unfortunately whatever Germany does, the rest of the EU countries later
copy because if Germany does something then it must be good, right, because
German efficiency or something.

------
gglon
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ai/eu-mulls-five-
year-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ai/eu-mulls-five-year-ban-on-
facial-recognition-tech-in-public-areas-idUSKBN1ZF2QL)

~~~
dang
Changed from [https://www.politico.eu/pro/eu-considers-temporary-ban-on-
fa...](https://www.politico.eu/pro/eu-considers-temporary-ban-on-facial-
recognition-in-public-spaces/). Thanks!

~~~
cmroanirgo
This now has a font page dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22072609](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22072609)

~~~
dang
Merged now. Thanks!

------
randomsearch
Response as a Brit: “yes! That’s great news. Idiot/sinister police forces have
already been trialling this, fantastic. Thank god for the EU.”

(Pause)

“Oh shit, I forgot.”

~~~
notkaiho
As an EU citizen in the UK having to often go around that private development
north of King's Cross that used facial recognition tech[0] I also would
welcome this so that it wouldn't become normalised. Oh well.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/04/facial-
re...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/04/facial-recognition-
row-police-gave-kings-cross-owner-images-seven-people)

~~~
TheFattestNinja
I thought it was already normalized across London, at least for the MET ?
Agreed, private case is different.

[https://www.met.police.uk/live-facial-recognition-
trial/](https://www.met.police.uk/live-facial-recognition-trial/)

~~~
notkaiho
Yeah, sorry to not be specific. I meant the private use without the (assumed,
possibly only theoretical) public body oversight.

That Victoria greeter situation sounds terrifying

------
drukenemo
“To work out how to prevent abuses”. I read this as: “to ensure only the EU
and top government can have access to such data.”

I believe their end goal is centralization of power. In this case, by ensuring
control on who can access such information. And it won’t necessarily be by
people appointed by those we voted for. Maybe it’s the same with GDPR. I’m not
so sure any big government has the pure intention to simply “protect its
citizens”.

~~~
gsich
A private company does not need to do facial recognition ... in public areas.
I see no legitimate usecase.

~~~
lopmotr
"public spaces" may include shops and other private property open to the
public. Shop owners may want to use it for marketing and blacklisting known
shoplifters.

~~~
CaptainZapp
You're suggesting that shop owners use a Howitzer to shoot flies.

Using such technology for this purpose is a massive overkill and prone to
abuse.

I already resent some of the tracking techniques used by shops today (i.e
abusing _my_ cell phone for _their_ tracking). I hope that some enterprising
citizens (I see organizations like the CCC) publish lists of shops employing
such technology.

Because I, for one, wil make damn sure that they don't get my business. Not!
one! penny!

------
jakeogh
What can be remembered (GDPR).

What can be said (Article 13).

Mandatory DRM is on the EU todo.

------
lnnaie
That means 5 years behind others that will be researching it and actively
using and improving the tech. What a rushed decision. And that's how EU did
and will always lag behind everyone else.

~~~
Frost1x
You'd think by the time much of the cold war ended we would have learned that
allowing technology to run away rampantly has vast reaching implications in
everyone's life.

I love technology as much as anyone but sometimes we have to slow down and
consider the potential implications of what we're creating/contributing to.
Not all technology is, in-and-of-itself arguably good for humanity.

------
emilfihlman
I find it funny how "privacy" is a key issue, but other personal freedoms like
ownership (say of weapons) or freedom of speech is not.

Privacy is even more detrimental to police capacity to investigate and freedom
of speech for you to critize and spread information about any of this, yet
most people on HN hand waive these rights away because they are not trendy and
there is hostility against them in the media.

------
Reggi55
It's odd how everyone here has such an odd opinion. It's best to let what be
be and regulate it asap. The outright ban just means we'll fall behind, as
usual with everything.

~~~
boredpudding
Fall behind with what? Fall behind with stripping away privacy from our
citizens?

------
timwaagh
Will make life easier for criminals. I would love to have the arsonists who
put my home on fire identified and safely locked away by a good camera. they
would have had to deal with an 'attempted manslaughter' charge so they might
have been prevented from causing other victims trouble for a while. So I'd
love it if this exemption for security projects includes surveillance just
outside the home.

~~~
Lammy
I was with you for the first sentence, but the criminals I'm afraid of are
NSA/GCHQ/FVEY/etc who absolutely would never abide by some silly "ban" on a
technology like this.

~~~
timwaagh
Of course, secret agents play by different rules. In the EU intelligence
agencies generally aren't as intimidating so it's less of a concern. But if
you do have reason to worry about this, investing in this technology might
help a bit with spotting spies.

~~~
ginko
>But if you do have reason to worry about this, investing in this technology
might help a bit with spotting spies.

This seems really doubtful. If anything the wide availability of commercial
surveillance data would be a treasure trove for intelligence agencies to sift
through.

------
DraftDodger67
People can easily be tracked via their mobile phone.

This is just another area where Europe is lagging behind the rest of the world
(ie. the USA) and wants to slow everyone else down so its native conglomerates
can catch up. Same thing with the recent regulation on autonomous vehicles.

~~~
rpastuszak
Our definitions of progress might differ.

“We can already be tracked by X” doesn’t mean that we should stop caring about
the other areas in which abuse can happen. It’s complacency, and it allows for
the situation to become worse to the point of no return. We’ve seen so many
examples of that in the past decade.

I‘m happy that the EU is considering taking more time to implement things
properly (or at least attempting to do so).

