Access to Innovation
Access to Capital
Access to Talent
Access to Market
Access to Knowledge
Date Trend snippet:
23 June 2021
Relevance date:
2020
Type of Treath or Oppertunity
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.
Unrest under civilians with regards to facial recognition technology (FRT)
Retaliations against FRT have ensued (anti-facial recognition makeup, camouflage, hairstyles, masks) in reaction to the threat of use of FRT in the public space. Without the guarantee that the protection of personal data is respected, there will be no trust in the technology. To foster trust in technologies as controversial as FRT, regulation must be present and enforceable in favor of protecting citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
More source info
Unsurprisingly retaliations against FRT have ensued. Anti-facial recognition makeup, camouflage, hairstyles, masks and glasses have all materialised as a reaction to the threat of public exertion of FRT. There understandably exist reservations about the legal parameters (or lack thereof) of the use of FRT. In regard to the use of AI-powered technologies, it has been noted that “[a]ny tendency to put blind faith in what in effect remains largely untrusted technology can lead to misleading and sometimes dangerous conclusions.” The same premise applies to FRT. With FRT, as a technology carrying an increased risk of mass surveillance, trust stems from the reliability and accuracy of the technology itself as well as the responsible, fair and transparent deployment of it. As stated by Jelinek: “Without the guarantee that the protection of personal data is respected, there will be no trust in the technology.” Following this approach, as this contribution argues, to foster trust in technologies as controversial as FRT, regulation must be present and enforceable in favour of protecting citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms. Currently there is little regulation in the EU or internationally focusing explicitly on FRT. Data protection rules and principles in the EU do however provide a basis for the appropriate direction of future legislation. Nevertheless, it is not our intention to analyse the challenges of regulation enforcement. Rather, this chapter is focused on delivering guidelines that would foster design of fair regulation of FRT.
