Remote biometric identification (RBI), including facial and voice recognition technologies, supports law enforcement in preventing, detecting and investigating crime, identifying suspects and searching for victims or missing persons. But the ability to identify people remotely, including in publicly accessible places, also raises fundamental rights risks. A new report from the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) finds that strong safeguards, effective oversight and clear legal frameworks are essential to ensure these AI-driven technologies are used lawfully and proportionately.

FRA’s new report ‘Remote Biometric Identification for Law Enforcement Purposes: Fundamental Rights Implications’ analyses how selected EU Member States regulate and use remote biometric identification tools for law enforcement purposes.

These AI-powered technologies are currently mostly used in recorded video or audio feeds rather than in real time. The report highlights that some Member States have yet to put the necessary legal frameworks and supervisory authorities in place. While legal safeguards exist, their implementation remains uneven across EU Member States, resulting in different levels of fundamental rights protection.

FRA’s research shows that measures initially introduced by governments as exceptional can become routine over time, particularly in the context of internal security policies. The report underlines the importance of putting safeguards in place before systems are deployed. 

The report points to:

• Privacy and data protection issues – RBI systems process sensitive biometric data, often by comparing captured biometric profiles against reference databases or ‘watch lists’. Their use by law enforcement including in real-time and in public spaces may affect people’s private lives and interfere with their right to protection of personal data. Some 37% of people surveyed by FRA said they fear that their data could be used for unauthorised purposes.
• Mistakes, bias and discrimination – poorly designed and malperforming algorithmic systems can result in bias, discrimination and inaccurate biometric matches, particularly when used to identify women, ethnic minorities, children and older people. Such errors can lead to unjustified police stops and false accusations.
• A ‘chilling’ effect on democratic freedoms – 29% of the people surveyed by FRA said they would be less willing to take part in peaceful demonstrations or protests if facial recognition was used. The prospect of being identified can discourage people from exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression.
• Lack of transparency and accountability – FRA’s fieldwork found limited information and transparency about the use of RBI technologies, with some Member States lacking dedicated mechanisms to inform the public about their use and operation. This makes it harder to independently scrutinise their use, identify potential misuse and challenge decisions affecting people’s rights.

To ensure that RBI technologies are used lawfully and responsibly, FRA calls for:

• Specific, effective and strict safeguards in national laws that define clearly when and how the police can use remote biometric identification tools.
• Protection of civic space and democratic freedoms in line with EU law – the EU AI Act sets out a framework for the use of real-time RBI by law enforcement in public spaces. It limits its use to specific purposes, such as searching for victims or missing persons, preventing a threat to life or responding to a terrorist attack. Effective implementation requires clear national laws and consistent safeguards to ensure that these technologies are not used to identify people taking part in peaceful demonstrations or public gatherings.
• Oversight and accountability – Member States must equip data protection authorities, statutory human rights bodies and other oversight bodies with the resources, powers and technical expertise needed to scrutinise these technologies, including guarding against their use beyond authorised purposes. To build public trust, law enforcement should publish the results of their fundamental rights impact assessments, going beyond what the AI Act requires. Police and technology vendors should issue regular public reports on how the tools are used.

Quote from FRA Director Sirpa Rautio:

“Public security and fundamental rights protection are not competing objectives; democracies protect people by protecting both their safety and their rights. With clear safeguards and independent oversight, remote biometric technologies can support policing without undermining the very freedoms it is meant to safeguard. Ultimately, it is about trust. And trust is built when people are confident that these technologies are used proportionally, responsibly, and lawfully.” 

The report draws on research, data collection and interviews with the police, experts and the public across seven EU Member States – France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands.

For more please contact: media@fra.europa.eu / Tel.: +43 1 580 30 642

Further information

The use of remote biometric identification is regulated under the EU AI Act: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (EU AI Act) – EUR-Lex

La Difensora civica Veronika Meyer ha incontrato Silvia Manzini, direttrice dell’Ufficio Relazioni con il Pubblico dell’Azienda Sanitaria dell’Alto Adige.  Al centro del confronto, i tempi di attesa e le disdette delle visite mediche, nonché l’esenzione dal ticket e le richieste dei cittadini e delle cittadine in relazione ai medici di medicina generale.

DI recente, la Difensora civica Veronika Meyer ha ricevuto nella sede della Difesa civica a Bolzano Silvia Manzini, direttrice dell’Ufficio Relazioni con il Pubblico dell’Azienda Sanitaria dell’Alto Adige. All’incontro hanno partecipato anche le collaboratrici della Difesa civica Nathalie Peri e Heidi Peer.

"Lo scambio di informazioni con Silvia Manzini, direttrice dello sportello per i cittadini,  è stato positivo e costruttivo, e ci ha fornito informazioni preziose su questioni talvolta molto complesse nell’ambito amministrativo dell’Azienda Sanitaria", riferisce la Difensora civica Veronika Meyer: "Per i cittadini e le cittadine, infatti, spesso non è comprensibile che, ad esempio, l’esenzione dal ticket sia soggetta a due diversi parametri (sanitario e amministrativo)".

Alla Difesa civica continuano inoltre ad arrivare da parte di cittadini e cittadine richieste riguardanti i medici e le mediche di medicina generale: secondo la direttrice dell’Ufficio Relazioni con il Pubblico, essi dovrebbero essere sgravati dalla recente istituzione degli Ambulatori per le Piccole Urgenze (APU).

Ulteriori temi affrontati sono stati i lunghi tempi di attesa per le visite specialistiche negli ospedali altoatesini, le disdette delle visite mediche e le elevate tariffe di sosta presso i parcheggi ospedalieri.

"La Difesa civica e l’Ufficio Relazioni con il Pubblico dell’Azienda Sanitaria continueranno in ogni caso a restare contatto, al fine di chiarire i problemi e le domande di cittadini e cittadine", conclude la Difensora civica.

Dolores Fernandez Galiño, valedora do pobo, participó en el día de ayer en la segunda jornada del II Simposio Europeo sobre Aporofobia organizado por EAPN-ES, en colaboración con EAPN Galicia en la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Su intervención tuvo lugar en el panel ‘Discriminación por aporofobia: respuestas para la protección de las personas en situación de pobreza, introducido y moderado por Xosé Cuns, director de EAPN Galicia, en el que también intervinieron Marta Cid, vocal de la Comisión Permanente de EAPN-ES y  María Teresa Verdugo, presidenta de la Autoridad Independiente para la Igualdad de Trato y la No Discriminación.

La Institución precisa que no ha podido determinarse de forma fehaciente la titularidad del edificio

La justicia de Aragón, Concepción Gimeno, ha sugerido al Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza que valore ejercer sus potestades urbanísticas sobre el edificio del antiguo centro de salud «Inocencio Jiménez», situado en la calle Mosén Manuel Oliver Altavas, y que adopte las medidas necesarias para garantizar su conservación en las debidas condiciones de seguridad, salubridad e higiene.

La resolución responde a la queja de un ciudadano que alertó del estado de abandono del inmueble. En el escrito se describían accesos incontrolados al interior del edificio, sustracción de materiales, presencia habitual de personas en la azotea y la falta de un cerramiento adecuado. Según el promotor de la queja, esta situación estaría generando un riesgo para la seguridad ciudadana, además de problemas de insalubridad.

A petición de la Institución, el Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza trasladó la solicitud de información a la Policía Local. Este cuerpo comunicó que en marzo de 2024 ya había requerido, a través de la Junta Municipal de Oliver Valdefierro, que la propiedad adoptara medidas para impedir el acceso al interior. La Policía Local añadió que desde entonces constan varias intervenciones por el acceso de menores y por la sustracción de materiales en el inmueble.

En sus consideraciones jurídicas, la resolución recuerda que la Ley de Urbanismo de Aragón obliga a los propietarios a conservar sus inmuebles en condiciones de seguridad, salubridad y ornato. La misma norma encomienda a los ayuntamientos velar por el cumplimiento de ese deber, para lo que pueden dictar órdenes de ejecución, acordar la ejecución subsidiaria y adoptar las medidas precisas para garantizar la seguridad pública.

La Institución precisa que no dispone de información concreta y exacta sobre la titularidad del inmueble. No obstante, la justicia de Aragón advierte de que, ante un eventual riesgo inminente, el deber de conservación del edificio en condiciones de seguridad prevalece. En esos supuestos, la Ley de Urbanismo de Aragón habilita a la Administración local para adoptar las medidas urgentes y necesarias con el fin de evitar situaciones de riesgo para las personas y los bienes.

En sus consideraciones, la resolución estima necesario que la entidad local requiera a la propiedad para que mantenga el inmueble en condiciones óptimas de seguridad, salubridad y ornato y, en particular, proceda a su cerramiento adecuado y eficaz para evitar el acceso ilegal a su interior.

From September 25 to 27, 2026, the Public Defender of Georgia, Levan Ioseliani, paid a working visit to Ashgabat at the invitation of the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of Turkmenistan, Yazdursun Gurbannazarova.

During the visit, bilateral meetings were held at the Office of the Ombudsman of Turkmenistan, the Parliament (Mejlis), and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

At the meeting with the Commissioner for Human Rights of Turkmenistan, the parties discussed the importance of the long-standing cooperation between their institutions. Yazdursun Gurbannazarova spoke positively about the work of the Georgian Public Defender’s Office - particularly the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) - and expressed readiness to draw upon the Georgian experience in establishing a national preventive mechanism. The parties agreed to sign a memorandum of cooperation next year to mark the 10th anniversary of the Ombudsman institution of Turkmenistan.

During the visit to Ashgabat, the Public Defender also met with the Chair of the Committee on International and Inter-Parliamentary Relations of the Parliament of Turkmenistan and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The meetings focused on the 30-year practice of the Public Defender’s Office, its institutional development, and the structure of the annual parliamentary report. Discussions also addressed the situation of women’s rights, including the strengthening of women’s participation in the legislative process and decision-making within the Parliament. The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan emphasized the importance of sharing the practice of the Public Defender of Georgia, an institution recognized as one of the best in the region and possessing a broad mandate.

As part of the events dedicated to the 35th anniversary of Turkmenistan’s independence, Levan Ioseliani—together with Konstantine Sabiashvili, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to Turkmenistan, and representatives of the diplomatic corps - participated in a flower-laying ceremony at the Independence Monument and visited the Embassy of Georgia in Turkmenistan.