Comment by ARTICLE 19

Free expression and human rights organisation
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.
Disputed source (2025)
Like Share on X 8mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation verification history Unverified Report this
No statement relation verification comments yet.
Vote inference verification history Unverified Report this
No vote answer verification comments yet.

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

Disputed The cited ARTICLE 19 page does contain these passages essentially verbatim, and the URL is correct. But the page says the statement was "written collectively by the AI Act civil society coalition and the #ProtectNotSurveil coalition" and then lists many organisational and individual signatories, including ARTICLE 19, so this is not correctly attributable to ARTICLE 19 as a single author. The page is dated January 16, 2025. ([article19.org](https://www.article19.org/resources/eu-human-rights-must-be-at-the-heart-of-the-upcoming-commission-guidelines-on-the-ai-act-implementation/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 17d ago
Disputed The quoted passage is real and appears verbatim on the ARTICLE 19 webpage dated January 16, 2025, with the omitted parts fitting the supplied [...] ellipses; the same text also appears in a coalition PDF. However, the source does not attribute the statement to ARTICLE 19 alone: it says, "The following statement has been written collectively by the AI Act civil society coalition and the #ProtectNotSurveil coalition," and ARTICLE 19 is listed as one signatory among many. So the quote is authentic, but the attribution to ARTICLE 19 as sole author is not supported. ([article19.org](https://www.article19.org/resources/eu-human-rights-must-be-at-the-heart-of-the-upcoming-commission-guidelines-on-the-ai-act-implementation/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 19d ago
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 · 1mo ago
replying to ARTICLE 19