REGULATING USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OF LIVE FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IN PUBLIC SPACES: AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH

Asress Adimi Gikay
{"title":"REGULATING USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OF LIVE FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IN PUBLIC SPACES: AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH","authors":"Asress Adimi Gikay","doi":"10.1017/s0008197323000454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Amid the growing calls for the complete prohibition of the use by law enforcement authorities of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in public spaces, this article advocates for an incremental approach to regulating the use of the technology. By analysing legislative instruments, judicial decisions, deployment practices of UK law enforcement authorities, various procedural and policy documents, as well as available safeguards, the article suggests incremental adjustments to the existing legal framework instead of sweeping regulatory change. The proposed approach calls for adopting national legal rules governing watch lists and introducing spatial, temporal and contextual limitations on the deployment of technology based on the assessment of proportionality and necessity. To enhance the effectiveness of overt surveillance using LFR, the article recommends adopting a transparency procedure that promotes accountability without undermining the objectives of law enforcement. Alternatively, the overt use of the technology should be limited to deterring the commission of crimes and safeguarding public safety, where transparency does not undermine its effectiveness. Limiting the scope of overt use of LFR technology entails that law enforcement agencies primarily utilise covert surveillance, with prior judicial approval, except in urgent cases, as this would improve effective criminal investigation and public safety. The legal adjustments proposed in this article can be implemented through flexible secondary legislation or local policies, rather than rigid statutory rules.</p>","PeriodicalId":501295,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Law Journal","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197323000454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Amid the growing calls for the complete prohibition of the use by law enforcement authorities of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in public spaces, this article advocates for an incremental approach to regulating the use of the technology. By analysing legislative instruments, judicial decisions, deployment practices of UK law enforcement authorities, various procedural and policy documents, as well as available safeguards, the article suggests incremental adjustments to the existing legal framework instead of sweeping regulatory change. The proposed approach calls for adopting national legal rules governing watch lists and introducing spatial, temporal and contextual limitations on the deployment of technology based on the assessment of proportionality and necessity. To enhance the effectiveness of overt surveillance using LFR, the article recommends adopting a transparency procedure that promotes accountability without undermining the objectives of law enforcement. Alternatively, the overt use of the technology should be limited to deterring the commission of crimes and safeguarding public safety, where transparency does not undermine its effectiveness. Limiting the scope of overt use of LFR technology entails that law enforcement agencies primarily utilise covert surveillance, with prior judicial approval, except in urgent cases, as this would improve effective criminal investigation and public safety. The legal adjustments proposed in this article can be implemented through flexible secondary legislation or local policies, rather than rigid statutory rules.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
规范执法机关在公共场所使用实时面部识别技术:渐进方法
在要求全面禁止执法机关在公共场所使用实时面部识别技术(LFR)的呼声日益高涨之际,本文主张以渐进的方式规范该技术的使用。通过分析法律文书、司法判决、英国执法机关的部署实践、各种程序和政策文件以及现有的保障措施,文章建议对现有法律框架进行渐进式调整,而不是进行全面的监管变革。所建议的方法要求采用国家法律规则来管理监视名单,并根据相称性和必要性评估对技术部署引入空间、时间和背景限制。为了提高使用《限制飞行法》进行公开监视的有效性,文章建议采用一种透明程序,在不损害执法目标的情况下促进问责制。或者,公开使用该技术应仅限于威慑犯罪和保障公共安全,在这种情况下,透明度不会削弱其有效性。限制公开使用 LFR 技术的范围,意味着执法机构除紧急案件外,应主要使用秘密监视,并事先获得司法批准,因为这将改善有效的刑事调查和公共安全。本文提出的法律调整可以通过灵活的二级立法或地方政策来实施,而不是僵化的法定规则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PARENTAL DUTIES OF NON-DISCRIMINATION AND THE SCOPE OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW INTERPRETING MULTIPLE DISPUTE-RESOLUTION CLAUSES IN CROSS-BORDER CONTRACTS THE ACTUAL LOSS ILLUSION THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SEPARABILITY THESIS CRIMINAL INTENT IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1