A cross-party group of 40 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have called for the European Union's Commission to bolster an incoming legislative proposal on artificial intelligence (AI) to include a strict ban on the deployment of any sort of facial recognition and other forms of biometric surveillance in public places.

In their clarion call to the lawmakers, the MEPs have urged that the ban includes automated recognition of sensitive characteristics of people such gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, health status, etc since they believe that such permissions would augment AI-fuelled mechanisms' discrimination towards EU citizens and put their rights at risk. 

While it is anticipated that next week, the Commission will release its proposal for the regulation of ‘high risk’ AI applications, a draft copy was leaked by Politico, an American political journalism magazine this week. This leaked draft at present doesn't mention a ban on any biometric remote identification such as facial recognition in public places. It, however, does recognize the intensity of public concern over the issue.

“Biometric mass surveillance technology in publicly accessible spaces is widely being criticised for wrongfully reporting large numbers of innocent citizens, systematically discriminating against under-represented groups and having a chilling effect on a free and diverse society. This is why a ban is needed,” the MEPs write now in a letter to the Commission which they’ve also made public.

They further warn the Commission of the AI's extent of discrimination that may be possible if such permissions were given. “This can lead to harms including violating rights to privacy and data protection; suppressing free speech; making it harder to expose corruption; and have a chilling effect on everyone’s autonomy, dignity and self-expression – which in particular can seriously harm LGBTQI+ communities, people of colour, and other discriminated-against groups,” the MEPs write, urging the Commission to amend the AI proposal to prohibit such practices to ensure that EU citizens’ rights are protected, including the rights of communities who are a higher chance of risk of discrimination, thereby are at greater risk by being exposed to AI-enabled discriminatory tools. 

“The AI proposal offers a welcome opportunity to prohibit the automated recognition of gender, sexuality, race/ethnicity, disability and any other sensitive and protected characteristics,” they add.

While the Commission is proposing to ban the practice of mass surveillance and social credit scoring systems to address the issue overall, MEPs are unhappy with the weakness of wordings and are demanding that the lawmakers ensure that the proposed ban covers “all untargeted and indiscriminate mass surveillance, no matter how many people are exposed to the system”. 

While the commission says there should be a ban on mass surveillance, the MEPs were worried to find that the proposal had exempted a prohibition on mass surveillance for public authorities or commercial entities working for them. The MEPs warn the Commission that the exemption deviates from the existing EU legislation and from interpretations by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), EU's apex court that ensures that EU law is uniform across the bloc. 

“We strongly protest the proposed second paragraph of this Article 4 which would exempt public authorities and even private actors acting on their behalf ‘in order to safeguard public security,” they write. “Public security is precisely what mass surveillance is being justified with, it is where it is practically relevant, and it is where the courts have consistently annulled legislation on indiscriminate bulk processing of personal data (e.g. the Data Retention Directive). This carve-out needs to be deleted.”

“This second paragraph could even be interpreted to deviate from other secondary legislation which the Court of Justice has so far interpreted to ban mass surveillance,” they continue. “The proposed AI regulation needs to make it very clear that its requirements apply in addition to those resulting from the data protection acquis and do not replace it. There is no such clarity in the leaked draft.”