EU negotiators push to regulate artificial intelligence amid privacy and security concerns
For the third day in a row, lawmakers across the European Union gathered in Brussels to press ahead with a proposed law on artificial intelligence. A preliminary agreement has emerged on the rules that will govern AI systems like those used by everyday chat tools, while debates focus on biometric surveillance and the role of AI in national security. A number of non-governmental organizations have urged caution about any move that could expand state power over private citizens.
Last June, the European Parliament voted to ban facial recognition in public spaces due to concerns about unacceptable risks to human rights. In the latest hours, the parliament’s leadership, drafting teams, and government ministers have faced intense pressure from the European Commission and the Spanish EU presidency as they seek a balanced framework. The discussions consider exceptions for national security or defense purposes, a topic that has sparked intense debate among member states.
Several countries are urging lawmakers to scale back the scope of the proposed law and allow certain policing and defense applications. The discussions include questions about real-time biometric surveillance, identity verification through physical characteristics, predictive analytics, and emotion recognition. Critics point to a lack of solid evidence on the effectiveness of some technologies and warn about potential harms to fundamental rights, especially when border control and immigration management are involved.
The Council of the European Union has faced pressure from member states, including Spain, which argues that security forces could use biometric tools to create profiles based on race, political opinions, or religious beliefs if these traits are directly related to a specific crime or threat.
Civil groups and experts raise alarms
Civil society organizations and data protection groups view the council’s stance as a threat. The topic has drawn the attention of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has called for a ban on systems that could endanger privacy and civil liberties. A prominent technology analyst described the approach as extremist and racist, underscoring concerns about its place in modern society. A joint letter from numerous NGOs and privacy experts criticizes the council’s proposals for empowering police with AI that could perpetuate discrimination and mass surveillance.
Commentators note that any widening of surveillance powers would challenge the foundations of rights and rule of law, prompting voices from civil society to demand stronger safeguards and accountability.
Parliament’s counter-proposal and the road ahead
Discontent with the council’s proposal has slowed negotiations, with trilateral talks pausing briefly during the night and resuming after Friday discussions began anew. While no final agreement is guaranteed today, the European Parliament, led by a center-left bloc, has outlined a counter-proposal that rejects the council’s current path and emphasizes clearer limits and oversight. Civil society sources have suggested this alternative is a step in the right direction, even if it isn’t perfect.
Analyses indicate the Spanish presidency appears open to concessions on some bans but remains firm on avoiding exemptions for national security that would weaken safeguards. Observers note that the outcome will shape how AI is used by police and security services, with lasting impacts on rights and public trust.
In summary, the ongoing negotiations reflect a broader European debate about balancing security needs with individual freedoms. The outcome will determine how biometric technology, risk assessment, and automated decision making are regulated in the near future, and it will set a precedent for AI governance around the world. A careful, rights-respecting framework could provide clear rules for transparency, accountability, and human oversight, while a lax approach could risk widening surveillance and eroding civil liberties. The discussion continues with champions and critics weighing every provision, every exception, and the real-world consequences for people across Europe.