As usual, politicians start to claim privacy rights when it comes to them, and yet this technology is already being tested throughout major European cities.
The hypocrisy is real.
The hypocrisy is real.
The European Union is already planning to introduce a temporary ban on facial recognition in public spaces - PRECISELY because the technology is being rolled out throughout European cities without first assessing the impact on rights such as privacy.
The story is about a leaked draft of a plan to introduce the same technology on the parliament itself - which would be inconsistent with the previous point.
I don't see any hypocrisy here.
I did, and that's what I mean. They don't want it in the parliament and yet the subway station I use every day has facial recognition system in place, there is even a sign that says "it's for your safety". I'll believe in a ban when they'll take it down.
"The European commission is expected to announce the ban this month, covering the use of the technology in stations, stadiums and shopping centres and lasting three to five years, to allow regulators time to assess the impact of the fast-developing technology."
is confusing you?
If you had followed the links, you'd know that there is a draft for the ban circulating since at least early January, and is due to come into effect sometime in February.
Again: this is being rushed through precisely because of behaviors such as the one you describe.
I fail to understand what there is to be outraged about here. Your exact complaint is in the process of being addressed (assuming you live in the EU).
What individual countries do is not up to the EU parliment.
eg TUPE (employment law) is quite different in Spain Vs the UK
Enforcement is an issue, it wasnt really imagined that you would agree to something as a group and then walk away and say : "Well forget that".
Thanks for the insight!
The europa.eu site has ever piece of information available, it can be a bit wordy and legal but there is usually references to bodies and the precedents they have taken etc.
As a very crude analogy with the US, you could view EU parliament as federal government and country parliaments (and governments) as state governments.
Laws at the EU level are applicable to all countries, but individual countries have a lot of leeway in in implementation, enforcement and their own laws (as long as the don't contradict EU laws).
I think this is not correct because from what I know in US you don't ever need unanimity to pass federal laws but let me know if I am wrong.
But I think the point they want to make is that they did not mandate using it. Something along the lines of "you can use it but don't blame me for setting the trend" I'd guess.