We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by ARTICLE 19
Global free-expression NGO
Notwithstanding the limited reach of the ban on predictive policing — which excludes event and location-based predictions — the guidelines must clarify that predicting ‘risk of committing a criminal offence’ includes all systems that purport to predict a wide range of behaviours that are criminalised and have criminal law and administrative consequences. As such, the guidelines should specify that systems making predictions about the likelihood of being registered in a police system [...] are within the scope of the prohibition, [...] In these cases, such systems must be covered by the ban as they amount to criminal risk assessments, and systems such as risk assessments included in ETIAS shall also be banned.
The current ban on non targeted scraping of facial images leaves room for problematic loopholes. The guidelines must clarify that any derogation from the ban must be in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, and that any face scraped from the internet or CCTV footage must have a link to the commission of a crime.
AI Unverifiable
source
(2025)
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Unverifiable
The source URL (article19.org) returned HTTP 403 Forbidden and could not be fetched. However, the quote content is consistent with the 2025 joint civil society statement on the EU Commission Guidelines on AI Act Implementation, in which ARTICLE 19 was a signatory. Web search confirms ARTICLE 19's documented stance: critiquing the limited scope of the predictive policing ban, calling for ETIAS risk assessments to be covered, and addressing loopholes in the non-targeted facial scraping ban. Vote alignment is correct (for "Ban predictive policing" - ARTICLE 19 advocates expanding the ban's scope). Marking ai_unverifiable since the source URL blocks AI fetching.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 3d ago
replying to ARTICLE 19