Bundestag Mulls Biometric Surveillance Ban in Data Protection Legislation

A proposed ban on biometric surveillance received a lot of attention at a Bundestag hearing on the draft bill for the first amendment to Germany’s Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG).

Representatives from the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) and the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) advocated for the inclusion of the ban, which would cover facial recognition systems in public spaces. Eike Richter, a constitutional law expert from the Hamburg Police Academy, also supported the ban, indicating that it could be a constitutional requirement to protect individuals’ rights to informational self-determination.

During negotiations on the EU’s new AI regulation, live facial recognition was a contentious issue. The EU Parliament initially sought a general ban on biometric mass surveillance, but member states opposed it. The final regulation allows real-time identification in specific cases, such as searching for victims of serious crimes or preventing terrorist threats.

Current police laws in Germany already restrict such surveillance, but these restrictions are seen as ineffective, prompting calls for an explicit legal ban.

Matthias Marx from the CCC highlighted the use of secret surveillance technology like PerIS, developed for Saxony’s police and now used by other states, which has evaded democratic control. Marx emphasized the risks of biometric surveillance leading to ubiquitous public recording, deterring activities like demonstrations.

Simone Ruf from the GFF noted that the BDSG is well-suited to banning biometric remote identification, given its existing regulations on biometric data processing. Ruf also pointed out the discriminatory inaccuracies in automated facial recognition, particularly affecting non-white individuals.

Another contentious point in the draft bill is the government’s proposal to restrict the use of personal data for consumer scoring by companies like Schufa, a German private credit bureau that collects and stores credit information on individuals to assess their creditworthiness. Constitutional law experts expressed varying opinions on the scoring bans, with some arguing they were too broad and not fully covered by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The draft bill also includes plans to institutionalize the Conference of Federal and State Data Protection Supervisory Authorities (DSK) within the BDSG. While some experts questioned the federal government’s legislative competence, others supported the move, emphasizing the need for substantial regulations and a permanent office for the DSK.

Source: Heise Online

–

June 26, 2024 – by Ali Nassar-Smith