EU debate on facial recognition in cross‑border policing
Europe is considering a broader use of facial recognition in police work. On Thursday, the European Parliament was set to vote on amending a framework that allows the sharing of data between law enforcement agencies across the member states. The proposal would let facial images of individuals be included in the data exchanges. Brushing aside privacy concerns, supporters argue that expanding police powers is essential to fighting crime. A wide array of NGOs warned that the change would widen state surveillance and disproportionately affect marginalized and vulnerable groups.
The current regime, known as Prüm I, lets police forces access databases in other member states. It covers DNA data, fingerprints, and vehicle registrations connected to suspects. For example, Spanish police can compare evidence from a crime scene with records held by France. This cooperation structure, in place since 2008, has helped solve numerous crimes and supported efforts against organized crime, drug trafficking, terrorism, human trafficking, and other serious offenses, according to the European Commission.
In December 2021, Brussels proposed expanding the law to give police more powers. In the year prior, political agreement was reached to create a centralized system that would automate the exchange of data, including facial images, about suspicious individuals. MPs were expected to decide whether to proceed with the deal, with indications pointing toward approval, given the committee vote in December showing broad support from conservatives, social democrats, liberals, and some far‑right groups.
Door opens to potential criminalization of all EU citizens
citizen concerns
Known as an update to the regulatory framework, the plan does not itself legalize facial recognition but enables faces to be linked with police records. Civil society groups worry that this would push member states toward broader adoption of the technology without sufficient safeguards. Critics point to the lack of robust protections to prevent rights violations. A political adviser to EDRI emphasizes that many people could find themselves in criminal databases without a clear legal basis, especially non‑suspects, acquitted persons, victims, and witnesses in some jurisdictions.
While the Commission argues the measure prioritizes security and more effective crime fighting, EDRI cautions that non‑suspects and others could be recorded in criminal databases without solid legal grounding in several countries. The proposal’s low threshold, tied to inclusion of faces only for those with a past conviction, is seen by some as failing to distinguish between serious crimes and minor offenses. Critics contend this creates a pathway toward broader criminalization of ordinary citizens across Europe.
Discrimination and transparency
The new rules assume that all 27 police and judicial bodies will uniformly protect the rights of the accused, but real differences exist in how member states implement safeguards. Since 2018, some countries have already taken steps that could worsen outcomes under the expanded regime. Experts warn that adding facial images to datasets could disproportionately affect vulnerable communities and minority groups, especially those in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods where policing practices are more intense.
Advocates stress that facial recognition systems tend to be less accurate for racialized individuals, raising concerns about misidentification and biased outcomes. Civil society groups emphasize that many people are unaware that their data could be processed unfairly and without clear mechanisms for rectification or redress. They also point to perceived gaps in police transparency and the handling of sensitive information found in large-scale databases that may include a portion of the population.
Awareness and rights in data handling
Organizations focused on civil liberties argue that a lack of transparency could exacerbate the impact of the policy on communities. People may be unaware that their data is stored or used in ways that violate their rights and may struggle to seek compensation or correction. The expansion of this law is seen by some as part of a broader trend toward heightened surveillance that could challenge the presumption of innocence and affect the general rule of law. The impact will depend on how each member state implements transposition into national law and the timelines set for doing so.
Citizens and watchdogs continue to press for clearer safeguards, independent oversight, and less intrusive alternatives where possible. The discussion remains active as lawmakers weigh the balance between security objectives and fundamental rights in a digital era where data flows cross borders with speed and reach.