Risks of remote biometric identification systems in public places for law enforcement purposes under the AI Act regulation

The use of biometric technologies is becoming increasingly prevalent, serving purposes ranging from simple identity verification for granting or denying access to electronic devices or physical spaces, to more critical applications in the field of security. In the latter context, law enforcement institutions and officials are employing biometrics to prevent and control criminal activity. This technology proves highly effective in achieving such goals, as it enables the rapid identification of individuals, even within large crowds, based on specific physical or behavioural characteristics. The anticipated security benefits of biometric systems are significant and, until now, largely unprecedented. However, their implementation also raises profound concerns regarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. This generates a contentious debate over whether the priority should lie with enhancing security—an imperative increasingly pressing due to the threats posed by terrorism and serious crime—or preserving individual liberties. The debate is particularly intense in relation to facial recognition-based biometrics, a technology widely adopted in numerous countries, where it has been shown to impose substantial restrictions on personal freedoms. Consequently, calls for its prohibition have emerged in certain contexts. Despite these concerns, the European Union has opted to regulate biometric technologies under the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). While the AIA initially seeks to prohibit real-time biometric systems due to their intolerable risks to fundamental rights, it includes several exceptions that may allow their use in specific scenarios. This creates the potential for the technology's application to expand beyond its original intent. Conversely, systems operating in a delayed mode are classified merely as high-risk, subject to less stringent requirements and safeguards, thereby heightening concerns that improper use could lead to mass surveillance.