**** *** ****** *** - *** **** *** 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
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
Create New Topic
James Brooks
Interesting. Good article.
Create New Topic