Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The data protection risks are massive and the Garda's record on data protection is spotty. It has unresolved issues regarding the use of CCTV, automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, drones and body cameras. There are also Data Protection Commission, DPC, investigations outstanding. The Garda does not have adequate data protection systems in place for the data it currently possesses. This Bill would mean that the force would be required to process multiples of the data it currently collects.

In addition, facial recognition technology is not effective. It is well documented that it produces false results wrongly identifying suspects. This is important. Let us look at what is happening elsewhere. A study of the London police in 2019 found that in 81% of cases facial recognition technology identified the wrong person. It was particularly weak in identifying the faces of anyone who is not a white male. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that facial recognition disproportionately flags ethnic minorities, women and disabled people, prompting concerns that it will exacerbate social inequality. I would have thought it would be critical to look at this aspect before facial recognition technology is used.

The definition of "recording devices" in the Bill has been left intentionally broad by the Department. I know there is an element of future-proofing with technologies. Things have been invented in the last five years that 20 years ago we could not even have thought of. I accept, therefore, that there is future-proofing, but not all future technologies should be used for policing purposes. I cannot say what these are and nor can the Minister because we do not know what is going to be invented. The generality of this section is concerning, including regarding the ethics and accuracy of the devices we currently have. We have no idea what future concerns there will be about future technologies. Potentially, there are major problems when issuing a blank cheque concerning future technologies. There must be some ongoing review of what might be used and what protections need to be in place.

In its submission to pre-legislative scrutiny of this legislation, the Policing Authority cautioned that the use of new technologies should not be automatically assumed to be unquestionably good or a panacea for every problem. The use of each type of recording device and specific technology needs to be evaluated individually. Each has specific aspects, and there will be a different degree of risk depending on what the device is intended to be used for. We must give consideration to both sides of this issue and to proportionality.

Let us take drone technology as an example. These would be covered under the definition of "recording devices" in this Bill. The Article 29 working group on data protection has already examined the use of drones for law enforcement and concluded that their use for surveillance should require a higher level of approval and the data processed should be further scrutinised by a human operator. Too much is simply being left unsaid in this Bill. It is unacceptable to not have sight of the proposals. I have made this point several times in my contributions, particularly regarding facial recognition technology. It is unacceptable to leave so many of the vital aspects of this Bill up to the codes of practice and not subject to Oireachtas oversight.

Speaking before me yesterday, my colleague from Kildare North, Deputy Patricia Ryan, referred to the number of gardaí per head of population. It is way below the national average in counties Kildare and Meath. In some cases, this figure stands at half of that average. This is partly to do with the continuous growth of population in these counties. I imagine that Fingal is probably a little similar.

See this speech in context