Facial Recognition Violates Human Rights, Court Rules
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/08/13/facial-recognitio...> On Tuesday, the 11th of August, a UK court ruled that facial recognition technology violates human rights. This ruling is the latest in a growing movement that facial recognition technology violates personal freedoms, invades privacy, and is discriminatory. The case came about when Ed Bridges, a resident of Cardiff, filed a suit against the South Wales Police. His facial image was recorded twice - once in 2017, when he was on his lunch break, and again in 2018, when he was participating in a peaceful protest. During the protest, a facial recognition van parked across the street from the protesters. Bridges, along with other protesters, took note. “We felt it was done to try and deter us from using our rights to peaceful protest,” said Bridges. “I take the view that in this country we have policing by consent and the police should be supporting our right to free protest, rather than trying to intimidate protesters.” The court originally ruled against Bridges but overturned this ruling on Tuesday. The ruling stated that facial recognition technology violates human rights. It does not suspend the use of all facial recognition technology, but rather, states that better parameters need to be put in place as to when it can be used.
Alberto Cammozzo via nexa <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> writes:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/08/13/facial-recognitio...>
[...]
The ruling stated that facial recognition technology violates human rights.
Quale diritto? Quale codice ha violato? Sapere perché è fondamentale per capire cosa è costituzionalmente o meno consentito, *anche* e soprattutto quando si passa per "il digitale". Ho cercato in tutti (alcuni?) link citati nell'articolo ma non trovo nessun link all'esatto articolo costituzionale o di legge che ha determinato la pronuncia della corte d'appello UK; non credo proprio che «violates human rights» sia giuridicamente valido. Per esempio, io vorrei capire *se* l'identificazione **preventiva** è il problema, piuttosto che - come si legge in molti commenti su notizie del genere - i vero o presunto "bias" degli algoritmi di riconoscimento e il loro margine di errore: per me fa **molta** differenza, perché i "bias" o l'errore (almeno in POTENZA) possono essere ridotti o eliminati MA l'identificazione preventiva (all'arresto o alla commissione di un presunto reato) rimane. :wink: Ecco gli articoli nei quali ho cercato (in fretta): https://techxplore.com/news/2020-08-uk-court-recognition-violates-human.html (non aggiunge nulla di interessante) qui un barlume di informazione: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/08/police-use-of-facial-recognition... --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- "Too much discretion is currently left to individual police officers," the court ruled. "It is not clear who can be placed on the watchlist, nor is it clear that there are any criteria for determining where AFR can be deployed." The police did not sufficiently investigate if the software in use exhibited race or gender bias, the court added. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Se qualcuno riuscisse a trovare il link alla sentenza (c'è?) avrebbe la mia sentita riconoscenza. [...] Saluti, Giovanni -- Giovanni Biscuolo
Ciao, la sentenza è questa <https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-bridges-v-cc-south-wales/> [...] 1) The Respondent’s use of Live Automated Facial Recognition technology on 21 December 2017 and 27 March 2018 and on an ongoing basis, which engaged Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, was not in accordance with the law for the purposes of Article 8(2). [...] Alberto On 21/08/2020 11:26, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Alberto Cammozzo via nexa <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> writes:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/08/13/facial-recognitio...> [...]
The ruling stated that facial recognition technology violates human rights. Quale diritto? Quale codice ha violato?
Sapere perché è fondamentale per capire cosa è costituzionalmente o meno consentito, *anche* e soprattutto quando si passa per "il digitale".
Ho cercato in tutti (alcuni?) link citati nell'articolo ma non trovo nessun link all'esatto articolo costituzionale o di legge che ha determinato la pronuncia della corte d'appello UK; non credo proprio che «violates human rights» sia giuridicamente valido.
Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa@zeromx.net> writes: [...]
<https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-bridges-v-cc-south-wales/>
[...]
1) The Respondent’s use of Live Automated Facial Recognition technology on 21 December 2017 and 27 March 2018 and on an ongoing basis, which engaged Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, was not in accordance with the law for the purposes of Article 8(2).
[...] grazie infinite! -- Giovanni Biscuolo
participants (2)
-
Alberto Cammozzo -
Giovanni Biscuolo