Search the record

Deputy Carthy for his amendment. As he indicated, he wants to put into legislation that a pilot programme should be carried out before biometric analysis is commenced by An Garda Síochána. As I mentioned on Committee Stage, the putting in place of a pilot scheme for the roll

consider whether Part 3, which deals with ANPR, or Part 6, which deals with third-party CCTV, or Part 6A, which deals with biometric analysis, operate in a manner calculated to secure "confidence in the impartial performance of policing functions, without disproportionate impact on persons of particular national

Seán Moore Park, which has been set on fire six times in the past three years. It also explicitly prohibits the use of biometric analysis within crime prevention zones, a safeguard that is not currently provided for. This Bill builds on the existing legislative framework but also highlights

have done a lot of work on. Something which concerns me in the context of this legislation is that facial recognition and biometric analysis technology is a high-risk use of AI under the EU AI Act and this Act has not yet been fully implemented. Indeed

dealing with mental health issues, but their abilities were certainly not brought into play that day. We are talking now about giving gardaí biometric analysis tools, body cameras, tasers and more rights to use pepper spray, which is in related legislation that will accompany this Bill. What about

this into primary legislation, such as the legislation we are dealing with here about the ability of An Garda Síochána to use biometric retrospective analysis. It would be inappropriate in that legislation to put in a provision that talks about with whom An Garda Síochána may enter into

create incorrect results does not mean that cannot be mitigated and we cannot have a situation where a human being is making that analysis for himself or herself, and that is really important. In the debate on the original legislation I likened it to opening a PDF with … hours of CCTV can go through and search for the facial characteristics of a person who is being sought, or the other biometric factors that can be programmed into the software. It may well turn up results that garda knows are not correct or, more importantly, that

system where Ireland becomes the central enforcement hub for the entire EU’s e-evidence regime. Matheson LLP, in a detailed legal analysis, warns that Ireland will face significant operational demands and, potentially, substantial volumes of foreign data production orders, all under extremely tight deadlines, sometimes as short … urgency suddenly evaporates. We still do not have a fully effective identity verification system at our borders. We still have gaps in biometric checks and delays in information-sharing. We still have well-documented cases in the public domain where individuals wanted abroad have entered Ireland undetected

provides that the office shall have all such powers as are necessary or expedient for the performance of its functions. Where research, analysis or the publication of reports is required to support the exercise of these functions, the office would already be able to undertake such activities … already binding in law. The Act completely prohibits AI systems that infer employees' emotions in the workplace or educational institutions. It also bans biometric categorisations that infer sensitive traits. The AI Act imposes a binding obligation on employers as deployers of high-risk AI systems to inform workers

recognise the benefits AI can bring to individuals, business and the public sector, be it through task automation, improved data analysis or increased efficiency and competitiveness across many sectors. However, AI is not an inherently positive force. It is a tool that can be used for good … rights cannot be compromised. AI systems must comply fully with the GDPR and all relevant data protection legislation. Personal information, including sensitive and biometric data, must be processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. Fairness is another key consideration. AI must never reinforce discrimination, inequality or social exclusion

outlined. Determining the means of most effectively addressing the misuse of generative Al and other digital tools will require further legal and policy analysis, taking account of existing legal remedies, statutory provisions and the wider national and EU regulatory framework. While lauding opportunities, we should not be afraid … first, when AI interacts directly with people, second, when Al generates synthetic content, third, when Al is used for emotion recognition or biometric categorisation and, finally, when Al creates deepfakes or text published on matters of public interest. These obligations apply to all Al systems used