Belgium Bans Private Facial Surveillance

By Charles Rollet, Published Jul 06, 2018, 08:29am EDT

Belgium has effectively banned the use of facial recognition and other biometrics-based video analytics in surveillance cameras for private, non-police use, taking a strong stand and showcasing the impact of new EU privacy regulations on video surveillance.

IPVM Image

What the Law Says

In March, Belgium passed an update to its 2007 surveillance camera law. Article 78 of the new camera law reads:

The use of intelligent surveillance cameras coupled with registries or databases of peoples’ personal characteristics is only authorized in the case of automatic license plate recognition, on the condition that these registries or databases are used responsibly according to the regulations protecting personal privacy.

Belgium's Data Protection Authority explained to IPVM that:

**** *** ****** *** - *** **** *** ban ** ****** *********** - **** ******* ** non-police *******.

Access ******* ****** *** ****** ************ ***

******* *** *** ***** specifically **** ************ *******, techniques **** ****** *********** are ***** ***** *** things **** ****** *******. However, ***** ************ ***** facial ****** ** ********* are ********** ***** **** require *** *** ** 'registries ** ********* ** peoples' ******** ***************' ** be ****.

Clear ****** ** ****

*******’* *** ****** *** is * ***** ******* of *** ****-******* ********* impact ** *** **’* new ******* **********, *** GDPR, ** *** ***** surveillance ********.

*** ****** *** **** went ********** ** *** ****, *** **** *** as *** ****.*** ******** ******** ****** the ***, *** ******, even ********* ** ** “GDPR-proof” ** ******.

*********, *** ****** ***’* biometrics *********** ** ******** by *** ****’******** *, ***** **** **** processing ***** ** **********, but **** ********* **********. (For **** ***********, *** IPVM’s **** ****** ******** ********************* *******).

Other ******* ** *** ***

*******’* *** ******** ****** law ******** ***** ***********, such **:

  • ******* ******** *** ***** organizations *** ******* ****** systems ** ******* **** to * ******* ****** registry. (**********, **** *** to ** **** ** Belgium’s ******* **********.) (******* 13.)
  • ******* **** ** *********** by * **** ********** their ***, *** *** cameras ****** **** ***** outside *** ******'* *******. However, ***** *********** ***’* apply ** ******* ******** setting ** ******* ** their ****. (******* *.)
  • ***** *** ** ****** up ** * *****, and ** ** ***** months ** ********* ***** determined ** *** ********** such ** ********. (******* 1).
  • ***** ********* ** *** racial, ******, ** ****** preferences *** ******* ******. (Article *).

Enforcement ******

**** ** *** *** was ** *****, "**%" of *********** *** ***** heard ** ** *** actual *********** ** *******'* camera **** *** ************ been *******, ******** *******, ***** ** Belgian ******** **************.** *** **** * legal ********* **** ******* for *** *********** ** truly ***** *** ****** consciousness, ********* ** *******.

** ** ******, ************** ***** ******** **** 100 ** **,*** *****. The ******* *********** **** intelligent ******* (******* *) falls ***** * **** category ** ******** **** 100 ** **,*** *****.

*********** ** *** *** is ** ** *******'* police, ***** ***** *** verifies *** ******** ****** registry, ***** **** *******'***** ********** *********.

*******, *** ******* *** told ****:

** ** **** *** responsibility ** ******** *************** and ************ ************* ** inform ***** ******* ***** the *** ****** ***.

Industry ******?

******* ** *** * larger ****** ** ******* many ***** ************ ************* heavily ********* ****** *********** / ************, **** **** not **** * *********** economic ****** *******. *******, if **** ******* **** of * ***** ** could.

More ********* ** ******?

****** ** ********* *** follow. ******* ****** ******** * prohibition ******* ***** ********* data, *******, ***** *** newness ** ****, **** exceptions ******** *** *** lack ** **** *** surrounding ** *** *** applications **** ***** ************,************ *********, ** ***** at ***** ****, *** ****** ** ignore ****. *******, ***** rising ******* ******** *** the ****'* ******** ** biometrics, **** ********* *** issue ******* ****** ******* the *** ** ******* facial ************.

Comments (2)

John Honovich

IPVM | 07/06/18 12:42pm

Charles, good article. Gert, thanks for posting this first as a comment. We are continuously looking for more European post topics so if anyone has ideas, let us know.

Btw, one analogy in the US is the state of Illinois, where facial recognition is effectively prohibited. For example, Google Nest disables their face feature inside of Illinois, as this article states:

For more, see Facial Recognition Legal Questions Texas And Illinois

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 3
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

James Brooks

07/06/18 04:30pm

Interesting. Good article.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 7,327 reports and 971 tests and is only available to subscribers. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a subscriber? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports