In India, a breach of the Tamil Nadu Police Facial Recognition Portal by the hacker group ‘Valerie’ exposed data on over 50,000 people, including police officers and First Information Reports (FIRs). The stolen information is now being sold on the dark web and could be exploited for scams, as reported by The New Indian Express.
Deployed in 2021, the Tamil Nadu police’s facial recognition system uses software from the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) Kolkata. It was intended for officers to verify suspects on patrol but has been criticised for its broad criteria in identifying potential suspects.
Despite the risks, India continues to expand its use of facial recognition since Meghalaya is deploying 300 cameras in Shillong, Jammu, and Kashmir using AI facial recognition on highways. Telangana police are upgrading to a more comprehensive biometric system under the new Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.
Why does it matter?
As India advances its digital transformation with major projects like Aadhaar and Digi Yatra, biometric monitoring has become common, and much of the technology powering these initiatives comes from Japan. According to a report from The Wire, Japanese tech firms, particularly NEC, supply many of India’s police forces with biometric tools. Although NEC has a human rights policy, domestic misuse remains a concern.
Bulgaria is set to eliminate physical ticketing with ‘Rock,’ a biometric access control system for large events. Developed by a government research team, this AI-powered system will use facial and fingerprint recognition for pre-registered fans, replacing traditional tickets.
The system aims to detect unauthorised access through algorithmic scanners and promises compliance with GDPR and CCPA regulations via data anonymisation and encryption. It plans to eventually incorporate behavioural biometrics to detect suspicious behaviour.
Supported by €4.46 million ($4.8 million) in the EU funding, Rock is Bulgaria’s largest AI project. A technology partner is involved, though not yet publicly disclosed.
Why does it matter?
This initiative is part of Bulgaria’s aim to position itself as a tech hub, as seen with the recent opening of the Institute for Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence and Technology (INSAIT) and the launch of BgGPT, a Bulgarian-language AI chatbot.
Concerns are mounting over potential border chaos between the UK and the EU as an app designed to streamline passport checks will not be ready to implement the European Union’s Entry-Exit System (EES). Eurostar CEO Gwendoline Cazenave disclosed the delay, indicating that the railway service intends to install additional kiosks at London’s St Pancras station to manage passport checks effectively. The EES scheme, set to commence on 6 October, requires non-EU passport holders to register fingerprint and facial biometrics with a mobile application to ease pre-registration and avoid lengthy border queues.
While Eurostar aims to reassure passengers about the app’s impending deployment, other border crossings, including the Channel Tunnel operated by Getlink, are preparing for potential disruptions. New processing areas will be constructed at Folkestone and Calais to accommodate the scheme’s requirements. However, the Port of Dover faces significant challenges due to high traffic volumes and limited space, with concerns raised by Kent County Council leader Roger Gough and Port of Dover CEO Doug Bannister regarding potential supply chain disruptions in the UK.
Why does it matter?
In addition to managing the EES rollout, the Port of Dover is grappling with the arrival of migrants in the UK, prompting discussions about implementing live facial recognition technology at migrant processing facilities in Kent. With record numbers of migrants crossing the English Channel, the situation has become politically charged, exacerbating the strain on Dover port. Despite efforts to enhance processing capabilities and implement new technologies, concerns persist about the ability of border staff to manage surges in migrant arrivals effectively, raising questions about security and operational efficiency.
Kenya’s government, led by Julius Bitok, the principal secretary for Immigration and Citizen Services, unveiled plans to issue three million digital national IDs and one million biometric passports before the end of the year.
The decision aims to streamline access to essential identity documents, boost revenue through eCitizen services, and digitise 46 million birth and death records. With two new passport printing machines, waiting time is expected to be reduced to under 14 days, doubling the previous year’s output. New passport offices will also open in Bungoma, Garissa, and Nyeri.
Bitok also revealed plans to enhance digital government services, raising the current 16,000 offerings to 20,000. Simultaneously, efforts are underway to expedite the registration of around 200,000 refugees as part of the government’s broader initiatives.
Maryland is setting a precedent with its newly passed law governing the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement, one of the strictest in the US. It marks a departure from Maryland’s fragmented and inconsistent facial recognition use regulations, establishing a uniform statewide policy.
The legislation known as House Bill 338/Senate Bill 182, unanimously approved by the Maryland General Assembly, establishes stringent regulations on agencies employing facial recognition to ensure transparency, accountability, and safeguards.
While acknowledging the tool’s value in solving crimes, the law prohibits arrests or positive identifications based solely on facial recognition results and restricts its use as evidence in court. Regular audits and reporting are mandated to ensure compliance and transparency, with prohibitions against using facial recognition for purposes protected by the Constitution or discriminatory practices.
Why does it matter?
As reported by the Biometric Update, facial recognition technology and its regulation have become focal points for politicians and civil rights groups worldwide, from the UK to Australia. Anticipation surrounds the upcoming release of the US Department of Justice’s interim policy on the matter, which signals a growing international effort to address this technology’s ethical and legal challenges.
Rights groups are intensifying their calls for restrictions on using facial recognition technology (FRT) by the US government. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has submitted comments to the US Commission on Civil Rights, asserting that FRT lacks reliability for making decisions that impact constitutional rights or social benefits and it poses risks to marginalised communities and privacy. EFF advocates for a ban on government use of FRT and strict limits on private sector use to safeguard against the perceived threats posed by this technology.
Joining EFF, the immigrant advocacy organisation United We Dream and over 30 civil rights partners have also submitted comments to the commission. They highlight concerns that a legal loophole has enabled agencies like ICE and CBP to use facial recognition for extensive surveillance of immigrants and people of colour. The alliance argues that FRT’s algorithmic biases often lead to incorrect identifications, unjust arrests, detentions, and deportations within immigrant communities.
The US Commission on Civil Rights has been conducting hearings with various stakeholders presenting their perspectives on FRT. While rights groups and advocates have raised concerns, government, enforcement agencies, vendors, and institutions, like NIST, have defended the technology. The Department of Justice emphasised its interim facial recognition policy prioritising First Amendment rights, while HUD submitted written testimony in recent weeks.
Why does it matter?
Official data from 2021 reveals that 18 out of 24 federal agencies surveyed were employing facial recognition technology, predominantly for law enforcement and digital access purposes. This ongoing debate underscores the growing scrutiny and debate surrounding using FRT in government operations and its impact on civil liberties and marginalised communities.
A wave of reconsideration is sweeping across UK businesses as they reassess the use of facial recognition technology and fingerprint scanning for staff attendance monitoring. This shift comes in response to a clampdown by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which recently ordered a Serco subsidiary to cease using biometrics for attendance tracking at leisure centres it manages.
The ICO’s directive followed its discovery that over 2,000 employees’ biometric data had been unlawfully processed across 38 Serco-managed leisure centres. As a result, Serco has been granted a three-month window to align its systems with the ICO’s compliance standards.
In the wake of the ICO’s ruling, various leisure centre operators and corporations are either reviewing or halting the use of similar biometric technologies. Notable among them is Virgin Active, which has removed biometric scanners from 32 sites and is actively seeking alternative attendance monitoring solutions for its staff.
Why does it matter?
The ICO’s intervention underscores broader concerns regarding the increasing prevalence of facial recognition and surveillance tools in employment contexts. The scrutiny extends beyond leisure centres, as highlighted by a recent case involving an Uber Eats driver who received a financial settlement over allegations of racially discriminatory facial recognition checks. These developments underscore the urgent need for robust regulations to safeguard workers’ rights in the age of AI and automated processes.
The House of Representatives has approved the reauthorisation of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), allowing US intelligence agencies to conduct foreign communications surveillance without a warrant. The bill passed by a vote of 273–147, extending Section 702 beyond its April 19th expiration. The debate over amendments to the bill revealed unexpected alliances, with bipartisan efforts to impose a warrant requirement for surveillance of Americans narrowly defeated.
Speaker Mike Johnson faced challenges securing enough votes for reauthorisation, with former President Trump weighing in against FISA on social media. After earlier failures to advance the bill, a revised version shortened the extension to two years to gain support from reluctant Republicans. The amendment requiring a warrant for accessing Americans’ data did not pass, with concerns raised about privacy and national security implications.
The reauthorisation underscores ongoing debates over privacy rights and national security measures in the United States. Senator Ron Wyden strongly criticised the House bill, expressing concerns about increased government surveillance authority and the lack of oversight in accessing Americans’ communications data.
While some lawmakers argued that the bill expanded surveillance powers, supporters emphasised its role in disrupting activities like fentanyl trafficking. However, the Senate must still vote on the reauthorisation before the 19 April deadline.
The European Parliament approved the Asylum and Migration Pact, a controversial measure that included reforms to the EURODAC biometric database and biometric data collection from minors. Three and a half years in the making, the document aims to bolster border security and streamline asylum processes.
However, critics fear it may usher in repressive policies and expand biometric surveillance, particularly regarding minors, as it provides for the collection of biometric data from children as young as seven. Despite these concerns, proponents argue it aids family reunification efforts and combats document fraud.
The pact’s complexity has sparked debate over its effectiveness and ethics. While some view it as progress, others see it as a missed opportunity for a more compassionate system. The implications of biometrics and facial recognition technology are central to the discourse, which critics warn could grant excessive control over migrants’ movements.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced a substantial investment of £55.5 million over four years in facial recognition technology, which aims to combat retail crime by identifying repeated shoplifters.
The initiative, part of a broader crackdown on theft, includes deploying bespoke mobile units equipped with live facial recognition capabilities across high streets nationwide. While controversial, its deployment has resulted in numerous arrests, primarily for offences ranging from theft to assault. However, concerns persist regarding privacy and false positives.
Despite criticism from privacy advocates like Big Brother Watch, Home Secretary James Cleverly emphasises the technology’s preventative nature, while the Metropolitan Police views it as a transformative tool in law enforcement. The Office of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner noted that careful deployment is needed to maintain public confidence.
Why does it matter?
The development has emerged months after Scotland’s biometrics commissioner, Brian Plastow, raised concerns about the trajectory towards autocracy driven by inappropriate use of biometric surveillance in the UK. While supporting specific biometric surveillance applications, like live facial recognition, he critiques government overreach and highlights risks such as database misuse and privacy erosion. Plastow’s concerns are exemplified by incidents like the arrest of an eight-month-pregnant woman for failing to report community service. While Scotland may resist England’s path towards a vigilant state, the stance of Wales remains uncertain.
