Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their presentations. I do not know if anybody watched the last session. It is probably unfair to the witnesses that some of the last session's witnesses' contributions are still ringing in my head. Today's witnesses may be able to clarify some of my concerns from that last session by virtue of their expertise. Facial recognition technology is about facial recognition. As Dr. Bracken-Roche said, that facial image can be obscured in many different ways. In speaking on the heads of Bill, An Garda Síochána has pointed out that there are measures already in place. People can be identified by clothing and then followed from point to point until they are identified. Its representatives seem to be completely avoiding speaking to the fact that this is facial recognition. It is in the name. It has to involve recognition against something. In its contribution, An Garda Síochána has not acknowledged that a database has to be used. Faces are identified and then run through a system to measure them against lots of other faces but An Garda Síochána seems to be saying that no reference point is going to be used for facial recognition technology. That does not make very much sense. If anybody has watched the last session, will they use their expertise to clarify whether there is some sort of misunderstanding in those contributions as regards what the technology is built for and intended to do under the heads of Bill?

I have another question, which is about Garda verification of those matches. Having a human involved seems to be put forward as the answer and solution but, as was highlighted by the ACLU in the US, evidence has shown people being misidentified and that misidentification being held up by the police overseeing the process. The police officers involved were apprehensive of questioning the machine. Will the witnesses speak to the importance of judicial oversight in the granting of access and the importance of independent oversight and the human who makes a decision based on the data that comes through?

I will ask a group of questions and people can indicate as we go back through them. On the codes of practice, to be transparent, I do not feel that it is enough to regulate FRT through regulations or guidelines as it is ever-growing and ever-expanding. Legislation should obviously be sufficiently flexible but guidelines may not be enough to fulfil obligations in respect of human rights, privacy and civil liberties.

How does a person who is misidentified by FRT get access to justice under this Bill? In other legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act and the GDPR, An Garda Síochána already has rights carved out, allowing it to access data. Does anybody have recourse to justice in light of existing carve-outs?

We know that the method by which that 99% accuracy rate is calculated is problematic. Who is calculating those rates? Is it the vendors, who have decided what accuracy looks like? Obviously, it is their intention to sell a product so it is in their interests to create an accuracy rate based on the number of people a system did not misidentify rather than the number it did. We should speak to some of those vendors. The procurement process in Ireland is an issue. How do we know who those vendors, who are setting the accuracy rates, are? Has a reliable vendor been found in this area?