Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 34 and 40 seek to insert a clear restriction. One question we have is around having clarity on what is included in the description of data-gathering devices. Amendments Nos. 34 and 40 would make clear what is certainly excluded. There would be clear "restrictions on use of facial recognition technology" in conjunction with cameras or data-gathering devices under this Bill. These amendments would ban the use of facial recognition technology within the cameras; the processing of data from the cameras with facial recognition technology and the passing of those data to third parties for processing with facial recognition technology. I will draw the Minister's attention to the recent news from Europe. Key votes on the upcoming artificial intelligence, AI, directive have seen the outright ban on public collection of biometric data upheld. There were very clear restrictions on the collection of biometric data, of which facial recognition is part, within the GDPR directive. Key votes on the AI directive have reinforced that. A recent article from Euractiv highlights that a vote to retain the ban was definite:

The split vote on the biometric recognition systems, the only one tabled upon the insistence of the centre-right EPP, was not even close, with 58 votes to maintain the full ban, 10 abstentions and 36 [directly] against it.

The signals we had from the GDPR directive were that facial recognition was biometric data gathering and would need to be completely restricted. Most groupings, including the Green Party's groupings within Europe - with the exception of the very conservative EPP grouping - are against the public collection of biometric data through facial recognition technology. This means there is likely to be an EU-wide ban on biometric identification systems and the use of AI models for biometric categorisation, predictive policing and facial images for the building of databases.The upcoming ban is particularly significant and relevant to this legislation given that the current wording of the Bill in section 77A(1)(c) provides for the use of cameras to prevent crime which again seems to allude to the issue of predictive policing. There is no question about the use of certain technologies when it comes to detecting or investigating crimes. However, it is clearly a different piece to look to it as a preventative or predictive measure and where there is the wholesale gathering of biometric data including through facial recognition technologies in basically a fishing exercise which then subsequently to its gathering may be used for various purposes. The wording in the Bill around any data-gathering devices to be used on our roads could clearly be seen as permitting the use of devices which gather biometric data. Public biometric data gathering will potentially become illegal. Why does the Minister not accept our amendment? These are very targeted amendments and much more moderate than the amendments to remove the phrase relating to data-gathering that we previously had. These amendments No. 34 and No. 40 simply clarify that facial recognition technology would not be included in that definition of data-gathering devices. The amendment pre-empts what may be in EU law and reduces the potential for our national law to effectively come into conflict with future EU law.

Amendment No. 40 is a very reasonable compromise whereby if the Minister does not wish to include an outright ban on facial recognition technology in the primary legislation, amendment No. 40 simply gives the Minister the powers to ensure there will be regulations to limit what forms of technology may be used to process data under the Bill, including but not limited to facial recognition technology. I believe most of Europe has been very clear on this. The reason we have seen strong support for bans on facial recognition technology right across Europe is because where it has been used, it has been ineffective, inaccurate and dangerous. We spoke earlier about those who lost their lives in regard to certain vehicles. There are also those who lost their lives to inaccurate, inappropriate and dangerous facial recognition technologies and an excessive reliance on preventative policing or similar measures. There are significant negative consequences to using this technology and it is not a neutral position to use it. I hope the Minister will accept these very reasonable amendments.