Using facial recognition technology as a security tool on Parliament Hill would pose significant legal, privacy and human rights risks – and may even be illegal, according to a study prepared for the parliamentary security unit.
He warns that the technology could be used to monitor, track, identify or misidentify a person, and could lead to decisions that would result in their arrest, questioning, detention or arbitrary banning from entering the parliamentary precinct.
The independent report was completed in April by the Leadership Lab at Metropolitan University of Toronto at the request of the Parliamentary Protective Service, which funded the research.
The information was gathered through interviews with members of protective services as well as lawyers, academics and people who specialize in facial recognition.
The findings come amid heightened concern for the safety of politicians and those participating in the public arena following a series of slurs and threats directed at MPs and journalists, particularly women and people of color.
Last Friday, a man launched a profane verbal assault on Deputy Premier Chrystia Freeland in Alberta, prompting widespread condemnation.
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino on Monday stressed the importance of working closely with the RCMP, other police forces and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons “to ensure that all ministers and all MPs and their staff have protection if they need it.”
“We will keep all options on the table.”
Threats and intimidation are on the rise, disproportionately affecting women, racialized Canadians and Indigenous peoples, “and this poses a threat not only to them, their teams, their families, but a threat to our democracy,” added Mendicino.
“So it’s important that we have a good, solid debate – that’s one of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy.”
Minister for Women, Gender Equality and Youth, Marci Ien, a former journalist, said bullying was the main thing her family worried about when they decided to enter politics.
“As a black journalist, the level of threats I received – to my life and the lives of my children – to run for office was no small decision to make. It’s real, it’s What happened to the Deputy Prime Minister was reprehensible, but not surprising.”
In response to questions, the Parliamentary Protective Service said it does not use – and does not intend to introduce – facial recognition technology, but added that it needs to find out more about “ evolving and emerging threats and technologies” to provide physical security. security in the parliamentary precinct.
The technology allows an image of a person’s face to be compared to a database of photos in an effort to identify the individual.
The report says it could be used restrictively, for example to compare a scan of an MP’s face with a banked image of their likeness before allowing them access to Parliament Hill. At the other end of the spectrum, the technology could be used to compare an image of a member of the public strolling the grounds of the Hill against a large database of photos in an attempt to identify them.
“The technology can be used to uniquely identify people who visit Parliament or categorize them based on who they are and, after identifying people, can be used to track their location patterns, political leanings, personal preferences and their activities,” the report said.
Dozens of security cameras are currently recording activity on Parliament Hill, with policies governing how long the footage should be retained. Signs posted on the Hill inform visitors of the cameras.
According to the report, going further and using facial recognition tools in the parliamentary context “raises numerous risks” regarding freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association.
“Some of Canada’s most vulnerable populations visit Parliament to participate in rallies, protests and to raise their voices on critical political issues, which are activities that the (Protection Service) plays a key role in facilitation and protection.”
The use of technology could “give rise to chilling effects” that are likely to deter many groups from organizing and going to parliament on critical issues – especially for communities such as black and indigenous people which have historically been subject to heightened state surveillance, according to the report. adds.
“There are currently no clear legal limits or required safeguards regarding the collection and processing of biometric information such as facial images by automated means – a major gap in the Canadian legal framework for the protection of life. privacy and human rights.”
Additionally, the report warns, if facial recognition technology were used for the protection of MPs, Senators and Parliament Hill in general, there could be a “scope or function creep”, extending the use of the tool to scenarios that pose privacy risks.
This report from The Canadian Press was first published on August 29, 2022.