Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-10 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland What is happening is we are saying we believe this person in one image and this person in a second image are the same. Where are these two images stored? They are stored in forms of public databases. It does not matter that it is traffic footage. It does not matter what form of database. I go back to the Recital 17 of the Act, which refers to "the comparison of a person’s biometric data with the biometric data contained in a reference database, irrespectively of the ... technology, processes or types of biometric data used." Thus, it is not a matter of saying this is the database we compare them with that has the names in it and if we compare it with other databases, it does not count. That is effectively what the Minister is saying. Consider the data we store in relation to our transport system or the data stored from public CCTV cameras. Those are databases. Once you are comparing images with other images that are stored, you are comparing with databases. Then there is this suggestion we will have one form of database that is the designated database with names in it and if we compare it with that, it is going to be biometric identification. Names are not necessarily part of biometric data. They are an extra bit. That is like saying we have a database of people with red hats. It is literally picking one factor, which is not a biometric factor, and saying that is what will determine that it is biometric identification. The Government is picking a non-biometric factor and saying that is biometric identification and otherwise it is just biometric analysis. Biometric identification is literally the biometrics, including the face, the body and the movement. These are the things you are looking at when you are looking to identify someone and that is what is happening when you compare an image from one form of data storage place with another data storage place. With respect, if there really was a need for this separate category of biometric analysis that had to go so far as to say it was not biometric analysis and had to be tagged on at the end in an attempt to narrow that down, why on earth would the AI Act not say biometric analysis was only against a particular database that had named individuals? Why is that not in the AI Act? Why is there not a separate "biometric analysis" definition in the EU Act? It has been a long process. There was a lot of discussion. Why is it unique to Ireland that we have to invent a brand new security concept called "biometric analysis" that is going to be just us doing our own thing? We also seek to lower the bar for what biometric identification is. It will not just be bad for us, but for Europe, if we try to create a lower, worse, narrower and inaccurate definition of "biometric identification" and stick it in a Bill literally so that we can point at it and say we are not doing that thing. It would be absurd if it was not so damaging, not just to ourselves, but to others across Europe. I have another point. The Minister mentioned the data protection piece and in response to that I note the guidelines of the European Data Protection Board. There may be carve-outs. There is extreme concern in relation to how those carve-outs seem to be applied and employed in relation to this Act and the AI Act. It still applies under GDPR. The European Data Protection Board previously issued guidelines on the use of facial recognition technology in the area of law enforcement. In those guidelines, it explicitly outlined a scenario very similar to those scenarios the Minister has been playing out, of people jumping on the bus, running away and going through the town and we are finding them. In these specific scenarios that involve remote processing of biometric data in public spaces for identification purposes, it found that such use would constitute a disproportionate interference with the data subject's rights under Article 7 and Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Minister identified and looked at the implications for GDPR in relation to that. Is this weird fudge of pretending it is not biometric identification also designed to get around the GDPR piece and the European Data Protection Board's clear messaging in relation to how facial recognition should and should not be used in public spaces? --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-06-10/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:02+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-10