AI Proposals Spark Controversy: Reactions from Data Privacy Campaigners Over Artificial Intelligence Strategies - EU's Data Protection Policy Translated: Rules Governing Personal Information Handling Across Europe
In Thuringia, a draft law proposes the use of automated applications to process biometric data, such as faces and voices, comparing them with publicly accessible personal data from the internet. However, data protection advocates have raised concerns about privacy risks linked to surveillance, behavioural pattern analysis, and automated data processing in public spaces.
The main apprehensions revolve around the potential for extensive surveillance in public areas, including the tracking and analysis of individuals' behaviour patterns automatically. This continuous monitoring and profiling of citizens without direct human oversight raises significant privacy issues.
Another concern is the use of AI to process data in real-time, leading to automated decision-making by police forces. The fear is that such measures could lack transparency and accountability, and the proportionality and legality of such measures may be questionable, especially if people are surveilled or flagged based on AI-generated profiles or risk assessments.
Data protection advocates also fear the possibility of overreach, where innocent citizens might be subject to intrusive data collection and analysis, potentially leading to discrimination or wrongful suspicion. Moreover, there is a lack of robust safeguards and clear legal frameworks to prevent misuse of AI technologies, protect citizens' fundamental rights, and ensure meaningful human control over AI-driven processes.
Melzer, a key figure in this discussion, questions the definition of "publicly accessible" data and suggests that social media platforms like Instagram may be included. He also emphasises the need for a clear legal basis and specific formulations in the law, and suggests a report to the state parliament to allow for an informed opinion on the measure's merits.
Melzer's perspective is that modern policing and data protection can coexist, but it depends on the technology. He stresses the importance of police officers understanding their limits and what they are allowed to do.
These issues echo broader privacy debates seen in other German states, where similar AI-enabled police data analysis tools are under constitutional review due to privacy and civil liberties concerns. This illustrates a wider tension between technological innovation in law enforcement and the protection of individual rights in democratic societies.
[1] Constitutional Review of AI-Enabled Police Data Analysis Tools in Other German States [2] Broader Privacy Debates in Democratic Societies
- The community policy in Thuringia, if passed, might employ automated applications for biometric data processing in public spaces, such as faces and voices, which could lead to industry-wide concerns about privacy risks and potential intrusive surveillance, behavioral pattern analysis, and automated data processing.
- The finance sector could be influenced by the proposed policy, as it involves data-and-cloud-computing and technology, and the lack of transparency and accountability in automated decision-making by police forces using AI raises policy-and-legislation and politics questions about the proportionality and legality of such measures.
- General news outlets report Melzer's suggestion that social media platforms like Instagram may be considered publicly accessible data, leading to the need for a clear legal basis and specific formulations in the law in regards to data protection and the use of AI technologies.
- As technology evolves, the tension between technological innovation in law enforcement and the protection of individual rights in democratic societies, as illustrated by the constitutional review of AI-enabled police data analysis tools in other German states, becomes increasingly relevant and requires ongoing policy-and-legislation and politics discussions.
