14 messages
A power struggle rages for your data
Here’s what we think of the new rules on how the secret services should handle bulk data.
A limited ban on biometric surveillance undermines its own potential
We spoke in the European Parliament about how a limited ban on biometric surveillance undermines its own protection.
Hooray! We freed the data of millions of people from the clutches of the secret services!
Hooray! We freed the data from millions of citizens from the clutches of the secret services!
We filed a complaint against the secret services on behalf of millions of citizens
We filed a complaint against the sercret services on behalf of millions of citizens
The secret services try again
Crises are easily used to legitimise sweeping powers.
Academics call for binding supervision of secret services
This scientific opinion also recommends binding powers for the supervisor of the secret services.
The European Commission does not sufficiently understand the need for a better AI Act
The Dutch Senate shares the same concerns we’ve expressed about the AI Act and wrote to the European Commission about it. The response of the Commission is not exactly reassuring.
Unfriendly reminder: The secret services are still stealing our data
The secret services are unlawfully holding our data. This is not allowed by law and not by the oversight committee. The system fails to protect us.
Update on the Dutch “Dragnet-Act”: One step forward, two steps back?
The Amendment Act to the Dragnet-Act passed the Senate. The improvements therein do not go far enough, but they are in the right direction. The newly acquired safeguards must not be overturned.
A testing society must not turn into a society of borders and control
There is increasing talk of measures that allow for selection at the gate based on health data. Can you show proof of vaccination? Then you may pass. Do you have a recent, negative test result? Then you may enter. Are you unable or unwilling to show these? Then you are denied access. There’s an understandable rationale that underpins these scenarios: we want to create a safe environment. Yet it’s causing us great concern.
Google seizes crisis to legitimize mass surveillance
By using terms such as ‘anonymized’ and ‘aggregated’, Google’s mass surveillance is veneered with something resembling privacy. But we must remember that Google’s data insights are made up of the data of millions of people who are tracked by Google on an individual level. And often against their will.
We need to be bolder
We believe calling for a moratorium is not going to help us win the battle against face surveillance.
Facial recognition: a ‘convenient’ and ‘efficient’ solution looking for a problem?
Governments and industry might benefit from a slow and steady introduction of face surveillance. Their calls for regulation might distract from a more fundamental discussion: Is deployment of this mass surveillance technology compatible with our rights and freedoms?
Amazon’s Rekognition shows its true colors
Mix together a bit of freely accessible facial recognition software and a free live stream of the public space, and what do you get? A powerful stalker tool.