[HN Gopher] Portugal proposed law tries to sneak in biometric ma...
___________________________________________________________________
Portugal proposed law tries to sneak in biometric mass surveillance
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 130 points
Date : 2021-11-15 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (reclaimyourface.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (reclaimyourface.eu)
| BaRRaKID wrote:
| That article is pure propaganda and not factually true.
|
| To give some background, the Portuguese government failed to get
| the annual budget approved, the president dissolved the
| parliament due to that, and scheduled new elections that will
| happen in a few months.
|
| Due to that the current government asked the leaders of all
| political parties to give urgent treatment to 7 diplomas / laws
| that are almost finished and should not have to wait until after
| the new elections to be approved. There is no secret move being
| made here, everyone knows that this is happening.
|
| Regarding the "biometric mass surveillance", one of the 7 laws
| that where requested to have urgent approval was about allowing
| the use of video surveillance by the police. The wording of the
| law was a bit too vague and as such did not get approval from the
| National Data Protection Commission.
|
| Also, it's worth to mention that the government can't approve the
| law by themselves and needs support from other (and opposing)
| political parties.
|
| As it sits now the government has to change the wording of the
| law to be more specific and ensure that it complies with data
| protection laws (as in GDPR), and even after that the opposing
| parties are only willing to approve the use of body-cams by
| police, and the use of video surveillance to prevent wildfires
| (which are a major issue in Portugal).
| [deleted]
| vmception wrote:
| (sidenote: propaganda does not have to be false. propaganda can
| be true and can be objectively good and useful information. so
| always couple that with solid points about why the information
| should be ignored, or skip the propaganda label entirely as it
| has lost all meaning.)
| mig39 wrote:
| Another aside... Portugal law's are actually strict on video
| recording. For example, dashcams are technically illegal, since
| they're collecting of personal information (ie: license
| plates). It's never been an issue for me, and I've always had a
| dashcam on my car and nobody (including police) has ever
| commented.
|
| Another example I can think of from personal experience: aerial
| photography and filming is only legal with permission from the
| Portuguese Air Force. This is relevant these days because of
| drone use. Again, not really an issue. You fill out a form
| online saying something like "I'm going to film in the Penacove
| municipality from July 1-31st, during daylight hours" and they
| send you a license.
|
| My experience is that in Portugal there are laws, then there
| are _enforced_ laws. Sure you 're not really supposed to park
| there, it says no parking. Not a big deal.
|
| Until you piss off an old lady dressed in black. _Then_ the
| police comes and tickets everyone :-)
| luluganeta wrote:
| The article has tidbits of hyperbole (you're right that it's no
| secret move), but accusing it of "pure propaganda" is a pretty
| strong take.
|
| A bit more background to complement yours: the law was
| initially put forward in early September, to be put to a vote
| in a few weeks, sidestepping the required opinions from certain
| public bodies (like the portuguese DPA, CNPD). This was
| uncharacteristically fast for a proposal that is supposed to
| touch a lot of new ground (AI, ethics, permanent recording,
| biometric storage).
|
| Its quick approval only did not happen as planned because of
| the death of a former president, which suspended the
| Parliamentary schedule and moved things forward a couple of
| weeks. As you remind, this was followed by the announcement of
| the dissolution of Parliament by the end of November, to be
| followed by early elections in January.
|
| If it was not for the passing of former president Jorge
| Sampaio, the law would most probably been successfully fast-
| tracked. Instead of backing down (the impending dissolution of
| Parliament would render the proposal void), the government
| doubled down and asked for special treatment to still get it
| approved in time. Add to that the fact that this law was
| initially presented right in the middle of the national
| campaign for local elections, and one can't be faulted for
| pointing out an unusual and determined drive to speed this
| through. Not secret, but hardly fair in democratic terms.
|
| Finally, the framing of this as a "video surveillance bill"
| (which you follow) is loaded and inaccurate. Video surveillance
| is thoroughly regulated in Portugal; what this bill brings is
| the application of AI without any practical safeguards, or
| biometric databases with few security stipulations, in the 4th
| safest country in the world with no records of domestic or
| foreign terrorism. This is exactly the kind of bill that
| requires proper public debate and getting feedback from public
| bodies and civil society (as most laws like these do). Its
| formulation -- mushing together police bodycams, AI, drones,
| biometrics, expanded access to recordings -- made journalistic
| reporting and public debate much more difficult.
|
| Why this law is being fast-tracked is still in the realm of
| speculation, and it's still in the air whether it will go
| through or not, but let's not dismiss the valid concerns with
| this kind of opaque political move.
|
| (I'm happy to clarify and add to the relevant context for those
| not following this closely, but this comment is already long
| enough)
| nusq wrote:
| You make it sound like the National Data Protection Commission
| warnings of it being unconstitutional a minor thing....
|
| If you read the commission comments on the law you will see
| several examples of how the video surveillance systems in
| Portugal are miss managed and abused.
|
| This law opens the door to the use of AI in these systems and
| with all it's ethical issues.
|
| After all, Portugal is not an unsafe country and local
| politicians are abusing the false sense of security that the
| video surveillance systems bring to win a few more votes,
| disregarding all the medium and long term consequences.
| mig39 wrote:
| In other words, a solution looking for a problem to solve.
|
| Fear definitely works, especially in small-town Portugal. But
| I'm not sure it will win those votes?
| sschueller wrote:
| Wouldn't such a law be considered illegal by the EU?
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| Not yet or not exactly.
|
| The EU parliament has voted on the issue[1][2], but member
| nations have to implement the laws following a central
| directive.
|
| [1] https://reclaimyourface.eu/our-voices-have-been-heard-ep-
| cal...
|
| [2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
| room/20210930IP...
| mig39 wrote:
| What are the chances this law actually passes before the assembly
| is dissolved and there's an election?
|
| The government is a minority government, running the country in a
| failed coalition. Does it have the votes to ram this through?
| squeral wrote:
| There's still a chance as some media are painting it as a good
| security measure.
| luluganeta wrote:
| Right now, it's still unclear.
|
| Initially, it seemed like a done deal because of the likely
| support of the major opposition (PSD, centre-right), which has
| advocated for wider surveillance in other contexts. Its leader
| also has a history of being strong on policing and surveillance
| as former mayor of Porto.
|
| However, in the last few days the PSD is apparently distancing
| themselves from government, e.g. recently u-turning and siding
| with the left opposition to approve compensating pensions for
| the disabled against the ruling party's (PS, centre-left)
| position against it.
|
| Today, the PSD demanded that only the bodycam mandates and
| wildfire monitoring portions are put forward in order to vote
| favourably. This means putting aside the AI, biometrics and
| surveillance provisions. If this stands, the most concerning
| parts of the law would not go forward.
|
| But in Portugal we're now in a pre-election moment, where
| positions might flip and statements easily get reversed, so
| we're bound to have a thrilling few days ahead until the final
| vote by the end of the month.
| pessimizer wrote:
| In the US, legislation like this is supported by both
| administration and opposition, the actual danger to it passing
| is public notice. What you want to do it hide it in emergency
| legislation that passes on a voice vote in the middle of a
| group of quick voice votes with no debate.
|
| According to the description by another commenter (who calls
| this post "pure propaganda"), this seems a lot like that sort
| of a messy process, and is being deemed necessary in order to
| enable police body cams (which seems like a wokewashing.)
|
| edit: a sign would be if this legislation as sold as being both
| so important that it has to be passed now, and so trivial,
| procedural, and boring that there's no reason to discuss it.
| luluganeta wrote:
| IMHO, the suggestion of wokewashing is off the mark. Here in
| PT there have been recent instances of police violence, but
| they were not accompanied by a movement to force police to
| wear cameras.
|
| The government presented a single law package covering police
| bodycams, wider surveillance, AI, biometric and police
| drones. I can only understand this mixing together of
| disparate issues as a way to diminish public debate and
| perception around some of them.
|
| The bodycam issue ended up capturing most of the media
| attention, in part because it involves labour issues, whereas
| AI or biometrics are much more technical and harder to
| approach journalistically. I think this is why you find the
| drive to pass police bodycams -- they're trying to pass a lot
| of things under the rug, and bodycams just happen to be a
| convenient talking point to remove focus from others.
| throwaway59553 wrote:
| Given the general ignorance of every deputy in the Assembly
| about any technological topic, and without any hearing of
| technical experts scheduled, it might easily be approved.
|
| Unless the far-left former members of the coalition decide to
| block every measure just to antagonize the Socialists even
| more, to make a statement that they won't be able to rule even
| if they win the next elections without a majority.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| if I recall, Portugal is one of the few countries in the West
| that has already implemented "No Net-Neutrality" .. pay-for-
| service over the open Internet. I have a screenshot of pricing
| for "social media tier" and others.
| luluganeta wrote:
| Indeed, Portugal was rightfully highlighted for zero-rating
| practices by some operators (not charging for some services,
| e.g. Facebook or Youtube).
|
| But recently the EU indicated it might move to crack down on
| the practice: https://www.engadget.com/eu-zero-rating-net-
| neutrality-rulin...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-15 23:02 UTC)