Abstract
This chapter summarises some of the key issues raised. Especially as error free face recognition technology and other biometric technologies have become a major pursuit for technology companies as they seek to perfect their products to satisfy commercial and government expectations. Such expectations will require justifying, since the data ecosystems are evolving, and new ways of thinking become necessary. For instance, data ownership and rights, and how the democratising of technology has started to challenge the status quo. Additionally, the right to image ownership is an issue, that like Cinderella is in need of recognition, if data protection law is to fully acknowledge the status of personal identifiable images.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Campbell v MGN Limited.
- 2.
Von Hannover v. Germany.
- 3.
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd.
- 4.
See Stanley (2008).
- 5.
Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece.
- 6.
Before digital photography became routine, photography used film and print processes. The resultant prints would be filed with the respective documentation. But, the Data Protection Act 1998 did not include photographs, nor did it adequately define consent. However, the GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 requires consent where it ‘signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her’. Therefore, if photographs are included in the data or are to be added to existing data, consent is necessary. Generally, otherwise, any photographs that are not included in personal data files remain beyond the scope of data protection law.
- 7.
That is: an image dissociated from the data subject.
- 8.
Information Commissioner’s Office.
- 9.
Data Protection Act 2018.
- 10.
- 11.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Ch.1 §9(1) (the) ‘“author”, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it’.
- 12.
ibid.
- 13.
See Burrows (2015).
- 14.
See Viera (1988), pp. 135–162.
- 15.
Gross (1988), p. vii.
- 16.
Data Protection Act 1998.
- 17.
ICO (n.d.).
- 18.
University of Reading (2010) Guidelines on the collection, use and storage of photographic images. This dates from 2010 (so should not be assumed to reflect a current policy position), (ii) was intended for an HEI audience and (iii) does not constitute legal advice.
- 19.
ibid Consent form for film/video, audio & photography with notice of copyright.
- 20.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c.48 Part 1, Ch.3.
- 21.
ibid Ch.4 §90.
- 22.
Licensing implies a contract which is agreed after obtaining consent.
- 23.
Furthermore, this is analogous to safeguarding policies that schools have adopted to control the photography of children on school premises by parents, relatives or friends. Such policies require that each child’s parent or guardian consent to photography prior to an event.
- 24.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISCP).
- 25.
ibid p 1, iv iv “…Some rights are not absolute: the right to privacy, for example, is a qualified right – as all the witnesses to our Inquiry accepted – which means that there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate to interfere with that right. In the UK, the legal test is that action can be taken which intrudes into privacy only where it is for a lawful purpose and it can be justified that it is necessary and proportionate to do so”.
- 26.
Chapter 2.
- 27.
See Stanley (2008).
- 28.
See Feenberg (2009).
- 29.
See Hunt and Mehta (2006).
- 30.
See Chapman (2007).
- 31.
ibid.
- 32.
Cavoukian (n.d.) Privacy by Design The 7 Foundational Principles. These include anticipating privacy invasion, and therefore making privacy the default setting and embedding this in the design and architecture of IT systems and business practices.
- 33.
See Chap. 8; Brad Smith (2018), the President of Microsoft has highlighted the need for public regulation and corporate responsibility. He writes about the need for government regulation of face recognition technology, such as the need to ensure the ‘right to know’ what identifiable images have been collected and stored. By alluding to PbD principles Brad Smith emphasises the need for transparency that is fostered by corporate responsibility.
- 34.
General Data Protection Regulation, Article 9.
- 35.
- 36.
Where ownership or rights to personal images do not exist at present.
References
Big Brother Watch (2015) Protecting Civil Liberties Big Brother Watch 2015 Manifesto. http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/manifesto.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Burrows T (2015) Big brand theory for professors Brian Cox and Stephen Hawking who trademark their own names to turn themselves into brands. Mail Online 29th March 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016648/Brian-Cox-Stephen-Hawking-turn-brands.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Campbell v. MGN Limited [2002] EWHC 499. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/499.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Cavoukian A (n.d.) Privacy by Design The 7 Foundational Principles. https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/7foundationalprinciples.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Chapman S (2007) Democratising technology: risk, responsibility and the regulation of chemicals. Earthscan, London
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Data Protection Act 1998 c.29. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Data Protection Act 2018. https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/dataprotection.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Feenberg A (2009) Marxism and the critique of social rationality: from surplus value to the politics of technology. Camb J Econ pp 37–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24232019. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
General Data Protection Regulation, Article 9. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5419-2016-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Gross L (1988) Preface. In: Gross L, Katz JS, Ruby J (eds) Image ethics: the moral rights of subjects in photographs, film, and television. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p vii
Hunt G, Mehta M (2006) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics & law. Earthscan, London
ICO (n.d.) Taking photographs in schools. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1136/taking_photos.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2019. See also: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/education/. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISCP 2015) Privacy & Security: A modern & transparent legal framework. http://isc.independent.gov.uk/news-archive/12march2015. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Mosley v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1777.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Narayanan A, Shmatikov V (n.d.) Robust De-anonymisation of Large Sparse Datasets. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece 27 BHRC 420, [2009] EMLR 16, [2009] ECHR 200. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-90617. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Smith B (2018) Facial recognition technology: The need for public regulation and corporate responsibility. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/07/13/facial-recognition-technology-the-need-for-public-regulation-and-corporate-responsibility/. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Stanley P (2008) The law of confidentiality: a restatement. Hart, Oxford
University of Reading (2010) Guidelines on the collection, use and storage of photographic images. https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/imps/collectionuseandstorageofimages22-11-10CURRENT.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2019
University of Reading (n.d.) Consent form for film/video, audio & photography with notice of copyright. https://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/imps/Copyright/imps-Publishing_AV_material_to_the_Web_1.aspx. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Viera JD (1988) Images as property. In: Gross L, Katz JS, Ruby J (eds) Image ethics: the moral rights of subjects in photographs, film, and television. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 135–162
Von Hannover v. Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1, [2005] 40 EHRR 1, 40 EHRR 1, [2004] EMLR 21, 16 BHRC 545, [2004] ECHR 294. http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2004/294.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Berle, I. (2020). Conclusion. In: Face Recognition Technology. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 41. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36887-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36887-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36886-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36887-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)