Access to Innovation
Access to Capital
Access to Talent
Access to Market
Access to Knowledge
Date Trend snippet:
23 June 2021
Relevance date:
2020
Domain of application
Source of threat
Victim
Trends in Security
Trends in Security Information
The HSD Trendmonitor is designed to provide access to relevant content on various subjects in the safety and security domain, to identify relevant developments and to connect knowledge and organisations. The safety and security domain encompasses a vast number of subjects. Four relevant taxonomies (type of threat or opportunity, victim, source of threat and domain of application) have been constructed in order to visualize all of these subjects. The taxonomies and related category descriptions have been carefully composed according to other taxonomies, European and international standards and our own expertise.
In order to identify safety and security related trends, relevant reports and HSD news articles are continuously scanned, analysed and classified by hand according to the four taxonomies. This results in a wide array of observations, which we call ‘Trend Snippets’. Multiple Trend Snippets combined can provide insights into safety and security trends. The size of the circles shows the relative weight of the topic, the filters can be used to further select the most relevant content for you. If you have an addition, question or remark, drop us a line at info@securitydelta.nl.
visible on larger screens only
Please expand your browser window.
Or enjoy this interactive application on your desktop or laptop.
The use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in public places threatens people's dignity
The deployment of facial recognition in public places threatens people’s dignity through possible interferences with the right to respect for private life and protection of personal data. In the context of law enforcement, a strict application of the necessity and proportionality principles must be adhered to, as must the principle of authorisation by EU or national law paired with the appropriate safeguards.
More source info
With FRT being increasingly used throughout the world, the following section will examine citizens’ attitudes towards FRT in a collection of locations. A recent European Commission White Paper on AI, excellence and trust in Europe asserts that the deployment of facial recognition in public places threatens people’s dignity through possible interferences with the right to respect for private life and protection of personal data. In the context of law enforcement, a strict application of the necessity and proportionality principles must be adhered to, as must the principle of authorisation by EU or national law paired with the appropriate safeguards.9 The Ada Lovelace Institute, an independent research body working to ensure that data and AI work for people in society, conducted the first national survey on the public opinion of FRT in the UK.10 The study concluded that “[t]here is no unconditional support for police to deploy facial recognition technology”11 to the extent that “55% of people think the government should limit police use of facial recognition to specific circumstances”.12 One third of research participants also stated that they “feel uncomfortable being presented with a scenario of police use of facial recognition technology”.13 Reasons given for the discomfort towards police use of FRT ranged from concerns about privacy, normalisation of surveillance technologies, lack of options to opt out or to consent and general lack of trust in police use of FRT ethically.14 These public opinions are not unfounded. An independent review of the MET Police use of FRT found that there was an inadequate legal basis for the use of the technology and a failure to satisfy the necessity requirement, and therefore a potential violation under fundamental rights law.15
