We review products independently, but we may earn affiliate commissions from buying links on this page. Terms of use. A challenge to the police's use of facial recognition by South Wales' police force has been struck down, after a UK High Court ruled that use of facial recognition technology does not breach human right laws. Justices Haddon-Cave and Swift, in a press summary of the case, "refused the application...on all grounds" because user data was sufficiently protected by the UK's Data Protection legislation. "The Court concluded that the current legal regime is adequate to ensure theappropriate and non-arbitrary use ...and that SWP’s use to date of [facial recognition] has been consistent with the requirements of the Human Rights Act, and the data protection legislation," the judges said. The legal challenge came from a former Liberal Democrat councillor from Cardiff Ed Bridges, supported by the human rights organisation Liberty. Bridges argued that the police had used the technology without the knowledge or consent of the thousands of people it surveilled. Lawyers rebuked this argument by comparing the data gathered to the police's use of DNA, and that data gathered by these cameras is deleted (provided those surveilled were not on a police watchlist) Responding to the judgment in The Guardian, Megan Goulding, a Liberty lawyer, said: “This disappointing judgment does not reflect the very serious threat that facial recognition poses to our rights and freedoms. Facial recognition is a highly intrusive surveillance technology that allows the police to monitor and track us all. “It is time that the government recognised the danger this dystopian technology presents to our democratic values and banned its use. Facial recognition has no place on our streets.” The chief constable of South Wales police, Matt Jukes, said: “I recognise that the use of AI and face-matching technologies around the world is of great interest and, at times, concern. So, I’m pleased that the court has recognised the responsibility that South Wales Police has shown in our programme. “There is, and should be, a political and public debate about wider questions of privacy and security. It would be wrong in principle for the police to set the bounds of our use of new technology for ourselves.” In the UK, there have been criticisms over facial recognition is used because of concerns over citizens' consent, and fines that have been levied on people for avoiding the cameras. In the US a number of US cities - San Francisco, Oakland, California, and Somerville, Massachusetts - have banned the technology for fear of misuse.
Wir nutzen Cookies auf unserer Website. Einige von ihnen sind essenziell für den Betrieb der Seite, während andere uns helfen, diese Website und die Nutzererfahrung zu verbessern (Tracking Cookies). Sie können selbst entscheiden, ob Sie die Cookies zulassen möchten. Bitte beachten Sie, dass bei einer Ablehnung womöglich nicht mehr alle Funktionalitäten der Seite zur Verfügung stehen.
We review products independently, but we may earn affiliate commissions from buying links on this page. Terms of use. A challenge to the police's use of facial recognition by South Wales' police force has been struck down, after a UK High Court ruled that use of facial recognition technology does not breach human right laws. Justices Haddon-Cave and Swift, in a press summary of the case, "refused the application...on all grounds" because user data was sufficiently protected by the UK's Data Protection legislation. "The Court concluded that the current legal regime is adequate to ensure theappropriate and non-arbitrary use ...and that SWP’s use to date of [facial recognition] has been consistent with the requirements of the Human Rights Act, and the data protection legislation," the judges said. The legal challenge came from a former Liberal Democrat councillor from Cardiff Ed Bridges, supported by the human rights organisation Liberty. Bridges argued that the police had used the technology without the knowledge or consent of the thousands of people it surveilled. Lawyers rebuked this argument by comparing the data gathered to the police's use of DNA, and that data gathered by these cameras is deleted (provided those surveilled were not on a police watchlist) Responding to the judgment in The Guardian, Megan Goulding, a Liberty lawyer, said: “This disappointing judgment does not reflect the very serious threat that facial recognition poses to our rights and freedoms. Facial recognition is a highly intrusive surveillance technology that allows the police to monitor and track us all. “It is time that the government recognised the danger this dystopian technology presents to our democratic values and banned its use. Facial recognition has no place on our streets.” The chief constable of South Wales police, Matt Jukes, said: “I recognise that the use of AI and face-matching technologies around the world is of great interest and, at times, concern. So, I’m pleased that the court has recognised the responsibility that South Wales Police has shown in our programme. “There is, and should be, a political and public debate about wider questions of privacy and security. It would be wrong in principle for the police to set the bounds of our use of new technology for ourselves.” In the UK, there have been criticisms over facial recognition is used because of concerns over citizens' consent, and fines that have been levied on people for avoiding the cameras. In the US a number of US cities - San Francisco, Oakland, California, and Somerville, Massachusetts - have banned the technology for fear of misuse.