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
Free expression and human rights organisation
In this policy, ARTICLE 19 outlines its position on the effects that the development and deployment of biometric technologies have on the right to freedom of expression. This policy is motivated by concerns about the rapid and increased use of biometric technologies not only by the private sector but also by public authorities. Biometric technologies are being used to analyse the way people act, look, and express themselves in public and private spheres. Their use ranges from border patrol to unlocking a smartphone, but one thing is clear: their use is being normalised. [...] For these reasons, ARTICLE 19 warns against the use of biometric technologies, especially on national security and counterterrorism grounds, without a sufficient legislative framework to protect human rights. We consider that a human rights-based approach ought to be embedded at the start of the design and development of any technology. Therefore, we call for a moratorium on the development and deployment of all biometric technologies by both States and private actors until they can ensure the full protection of freedom of expression and full compliance with international human rights standards. [...] Summary of recommendations: 1. States should ban biometric mass surveillanceAI Verified source (2021-04)
Quote authenticity verification history
Verification History
AI Verified
The supplied PDF is ARTICLE 19’s policy paper When bodies become data: Biometric technologies and freedom of expression. Its front matter states it was first published by ARTICLE 19 in April 2021, and pages 3–4 of the executive summary contain the opening paragraph, the moratorium passage, and recommendation 1 exactly as stored, with [...] only omitting intervening text. That confirms the content is real, verbatim in the retained portions, correctly attributed to ARTICLE 19, and present at the given URL. ([article19.org](https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Biometric-Report-P3-min.pdf))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 3d ago
Disputed
The source PDF does contain these passages and attributes the report to ARTICLE 19 (2021): the executive-summary opening on page 5 and the recommendation “1. States should ban biometric mass surveillance” on page 6. However, the supplied block is not verbatim as presented, because it omits an intervening paragraph beginning “This policy brief is divided into five parts...” without marking the omission with [...]. That makes the quoted block materially altered rather than an exact quote. ([article19.org](https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Biometric-Report-P3-min.pdf))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 5d ago
AI Verified
Verified. The source PDF (article19.org, 2021/05 upload) returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch, but web search confirmed the quoted text is genuine ARTICLE 19 policy from its May 2021 report "When bodies become data: Biometric technologies and freedom of expression." Confirmed verbatim/near-verbatim: ARTICLE 19's call "for a moratorium on the development and deployment of all biometric technologies by both States and private actors until they can ensure the full protection of freedom of expression," and recommendation #1 that "States should ban biometric mass surveillance." The source URL is on ARTICLE 19's own official domain. The position clearly supports statement #412 ("Ban the use of AI for mass surveillance"), so the "for" vote aligns. Year 2021 is correct; the quote remains relevant and was kept. I searched for a verbatim, sourced 2024-2026 ARTICLE 19 quote on this exact topic to add alongside but found only general EU AI Act coverage, so none was added rather than fabricating one.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 9d ago
replying to ARTICLE 19