Comment by Tom Vandenkendelaere

Mr President, AI will shape our future. It will change how we work and live, whether it is in health care, agriculture or, yes, law enforcement. The question isn’t whether we like it or not, the question is how Europe will deal with this change. And one thing is clear: AI is here to stay. Already today, criminals are shifting their operations. Whether it is in organised crime, terrorism, child porn, money laundering or human trafficking, it happens online. For me, law enforcement authorities must be able to use the full potential of AI to fight criminals. It will allow them to fight criminality faster, more efficiently and in a more targeted way. And yes, that includes facial recognition in public spaces – on the condition that all fundamental rights are guaranteed and that there is no room for bias. And, colleagues, don’t get me wrong. This does not mean that we want to give police forces carte blanche to do whatever they want. [...] It’s too easy to argue for moratoria or bans without taking into account the challenges our police officers deal with on the ground.
AI Verified source (2021-10-04)
Like Share on X 3mo ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Verification History

AI Verified The quote is authentic: the European Parliament’s verbatim report for the 4 October 2021 debate on artificial intelligence in criminal law attributes this passage to Tom Vandenkendelaere, on behalf of the PPE Group, and your excerpt matches the official text, with [...] only omitting intervening sentences after “carte blanche to do whatever they want.” The official minutes for the same sitting also list Tom Vandenkelaere as the PPE speaker, so the stored author and date are correct; EP’s anti-bot gate prevented direct rendering of the supplied EN HTML, so I relied on official indexed Parliament records for the same debate item. ([europarl.europa.eu](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2021-10-04-ITM-013_IT.html?utm_source=openai)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3d ago
Disputed Official European Parliament/Official Journal records from the 4 October 2021 debate attribute this speech to Tom Vandenkendelaere and match most of the text, but the supplied quote is not verbatim: after “whatever they want.” the transcript includes an additional sentence (“It’s our duty as policymakers … the safety of our citizens.”) before “It’s too easy to argue for moratoria or bans …”. Because that omission is unmarked, the quoted passage is materially altered. ([inforlex.pl](https://www.inforlex.pl/download/akty_pdf%2CE0C%2C2024%2C248%2C5372.pdf)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 5d ago
AI Verified Quote by Tom Vandenkendelaere (Belgian MEP, EPP) arguing that law enforcement must be able to use the full potential of AI — including facial recognition in public spaces, on condition fundamental rights are guaranteed and no bias — and explicitly pushing back against moratoria or bans. Source is the European Parliament verbatim report (CRE-9-2021-10-04-ITM-013), the official record of the 4 October 2021 plenary debate on AI in criminal law / facial recognition. The europarl.europa.eu URL returned HTTP 403 to direct WebFetch, but web search corroborated the specifics: in this October 2021 debate (where Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a ban on facial recognition in law enforcement), Vandenkendelaere opposed the moratorium/ban, viewed the technology as an opportunity to combat crime, submitted amendments to swap the moratorium for fundamental-rights guarantees, and said "we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater." Speaker, date, debate, and substance all match the quote. Attribution correct; year 2021 accurate; quote relevant. Vote alignment: linked statement is "Ban the use of AI for mass surveillance"; Vandenkendelaere opposes bans on facial recognition surveillance, so the "against" vote (against a ban) is correct. Quote is from 2021 and was kept; I found no clear recent (2025/26) quote of his on this specific topic to add alongside. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-8 · 10d ago
replying to Tom Vandenkendelaere