The first use of AI by the Belgian government is basically to use it to spy on it’s people’s past and present actions to punish them. Jus wow.
They should instead use AI for what it is meant and advertised for: increase productivity and reduce unnecessary government spending.
This is basically the use case of how not to use AI.
Also the post of AI and privacy minister should not be shared since they have conflicting interests.
Great, now we can find criminals faster, then try them in court two years later, threaten them with non effective punishment, and release them on a technicality!
But seriously, I wonder what the ‘use by law enforcement authorities in specific cases’ means. It’s good that this can’t be used to keep track of protesters for example. But I guess facial recognition is useful in case of a manhunt for a big criminal and also to monitor common litter spots for example. But which of these would be legal?
Annelies Verlinden of CD&V is now minister of justice and was previously the one in the euro commission trying to ram chatcontrol through so I would not be surprised if this was related to her and more efforts to enact total surveillance will come from her side.
You know, instead of going weird ways with AI and everything, you could also just try hiring enough police so that they may answer their emails in less than 2 months… Bonus if it means they can go to accident locations on the day they are called.
Great news guys, we have finally established “that terrible use case of AI” inspired directly by the sci-fi book “That Terrible Use Case of AI And Its Consequences”!
We are doomed! Religious Flemish fruitcakes are in charge.
The party of BIG govt is here.
I’m not against the use of AI and facial recognition to fight crime. But in this case it feels like giving a loaded automatic rifle to a five year old with muscle spasms.
I have zero confidence in the Belgian police being able to do basic police work as it is, a tool like this won’t help one bit.
We need police reform, better trained police officers, more police presence, and once they prove they can actually do their job in an efficient and trustworthy way – THEN let’s discuss adding powerful privacy infringing tools.
Right now I’m certain that such a tool will only be used to decrease police presence and make them even slower to respond. It wouldn’t even surprise me if they’d use it more to identify people putting their bags out on the wrong day than to identify bike thieves and robbers.
I thought facial ID is forbidden here ? Wouldn’t AI enter in this category…
>In navolging van de Artificial Intelligence Act die recent werd gestemd in het Europees Parlement, maken we werk van een concreet beleid rond het inzetten van technologieën die onder toepassing van deze AI Act vallen. We maken dan ook in samenwerking met de inlichtingendiensten en veiligheidsdiensten – binnen een strikt en precies bepaald wettelijk kader- proeftuinen voor nieuwe operationele toepassingen en nieuwe technologieën mogelijk . Daarbij kan bijvoorbeeld gedacht worden aan de inzet van gezichtsherkenningstechnologie voor de opsporing van veroordeelden en verdachten. We verruimen de camera-wetgeving om meer toepassingen mogelijk te maken van (slimme) camerabewaking. Ook AI wordt verder ingezet om de politie van bepaalde administratieve taken te ontlasten, zoals het invoeren van ‘speech-to-text’ principe. Tijdens het onderzoek en de mogelijke uitvoering/invoering van deze nieuwe technologieën maken we altijd de afweging tussen het recht op veiligheid (wat een fundamenteel mensenrecht is) en het recht op privacy.
This is from the “regeerakkoord”. In the AI Act it says that the following is prohibited:
* **compiling facial recognition databases** by untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage.
Which means that police forces could run AI on targeted or known footage of perpetrators. Or, use AI on random and public cameras without storing anything they find. Something like that. But how do you make sure police forces adhere to those rules? What will be the controls? And that last sentence scares me as well (right of safety vs right of privacy, where do you draw the line?)
Welcome to your Belgian Dystopia.
Next up: social credit system.
Fuck this.
Ik denk dat ik er in die photo op het eerste zicht toch al 2 of 3 identificeer en dat zonder AI, hé mannekes!
And of course the same technologies could be used to track political opponents, activists or whoever the people in power classify as “undesirables”.
But it’s not like Europe is shifting more and more to the Right so I’m sure that won’t become an issue in the future… /s
We already know where they are located. In the EU parliament.
So they don’t want to use cameras to catch dangerous people using their smartphone behind the wheel because of “privacy concerns”, but they don’t see a problem with literal dystopian face tracking AI?
Kind of shows that they ended the smartphone detection cameras because their friends were complaining about fines and that it has nothing to do with privacy.
Wordt AI nog niet gebruikt voor fraudedetectie?
Maybe use AI to figure out where all the money is going into?
Thats step one
If it works as intended it should pre-flag all politicians as potential criminals.
Maybe De Wever can have a Proof of Concept with Ultras at football games in Antwerp.
(And yes, step 1 into Dystopia)
Using that fucked up weirdo Peter Thiel’s Palantir no doubt?
Use it in goverment more, it will help with the bureaucratic mess and force those people to actually get out of their chairs and do useful stuff which they are paid to do by the taxpayer.
Imagine how many people frauding their fietsvergoeding we can now find!
Facial recognition should not be a thing, ever. Even less more storing that data.
A good use of AI/ML would be scanning the vast amount of data we have to find potential fraud, both from employers and employees. Training models on those caught committing fraud, and having that model scan through all employment and fiscal data to find other potential targets to investigate, could actually help those bullshit “we will find 1 billion worth of fraud this year so we’ll already add it to our budget!” claims by the government.
Calm down people, I’ve worked on government IT projects. This will be outsourced to some Kronos company whose leadership just happens to be friends with the minister (just a coincidence though, please don’t look into it). They’ll send their absolute best senior consultants, fresh from university, to solve the case. Then, when the project doesn’t actually advance or produce any tangible results, they will just hire more consultants to fix the issues!
27 comments
The first use of AI by the Belgian government is basically to use it to spy on it’s people’s past and present actions to punish them. Jus wow.
They should instead use AI for what it is meant and advertised for: increase productivity and reduce unnecessary government spending.
This is basically the use case of how not to use AI.
Also the post of AI and privacy minister should not be shared since they have conflicting interests.
Great, now we can find criminals faster, then try them in court two years later, threaten them with non effective punishment, and release them on a technicality!
But seriously, I wonder what the ‘use by law enforcement authorities in specific cases’ means. It’s good that this can’t be used to keep track of protesters for example. But I guess facial recognition is useful in case of a manhunt for a big criminal and also to monitor common litter spots for example. But which of these would be legal?
Annelies Verlinden of CD&V is now minister of justice and was previously the one in the euro commission trying to ram chatcontrol through so I would not be surprised if this was related to her and more efforts to enact total surveillance will come from her side.
You know, instead of going weird ways with AI and everything, you could also just try hiring enough police so that they may answer their emails in less than 2 months… Bonus if it means they can go to accident locations on the day they are called.
Great news guys, we have finally established “that terrible use case of AI” inspired directly by the sci-fi book “That Terrible Use Case of AI And Its Consequences”!
We are doomed! Religious Flemish fruitcakes are in charge.
The party of BIG govt is here.
I’m not against the use of AI and facial recognition to fight crime. But in this case it feels like giving a loaded automatic rifle to a five year old with muscle spasms.
I have zero confidence in the Belgian police being able to do basic police work as it is, a tool like this won’t help one bit.
We need police reform, better trained police officers, more police presence, and once they prove they can actually do their job in an efficient and trustworthy way – THEN let’s discuss adding powerful privacy infringing tools.
Right now I’m certain that such a tool will only be used to decrease police presence and make them even slower to respond. It wouldn’t even surprise me if they’d use it more to identify people putting their bags out on the wrong day than to identify bike thieves and robbers.
I thought facial ID is forbidden here ? Wouldn’t AI enter in this category…
>In navolging van de Artificial Intelligence Act die recent werd gestemd in het Europees Parlement, maken we werk van een concreet beleid rond het inzetten van technologieën die onder toepassing van deze AI Act vallen. We maken dan ook in samenwerking met de inlichtingendiensten en veiligheidsdiensten – binnen een strikt en precies bepaald wettelijk kader- proeftuinen voor nieuwe operationele toepassingen en nieuwe technologieën mogelijk . Daarbij kan bijvoorbeeld gedacht worden aan de inzet van gezichtsherkenningstechnologie voor de opsporing van veroordeelden en verdachten. We verruimen de camera-wetgeving om meer toepassingen mogelijk te maken van (slimme) camerabewaking. Ook AI wordt verder ingezet om de politie van bepaalde administratieve taken te ontlasten, zoals het invoeren van ‘speech-to-text’ principe. Tijdens het onderzoek en de mogelijke uitvoering/invoering van deze nieuwe technologieën maken we altijd de afweging tussen het recht op veiligheid (wat een fundamenteel mensenrecht is) en het recht op privacy.
This is from the “regeerakkoord”. In the AI Act it says that the following is prohibited:
* **compiling facial recognition databases** by untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage.
Which means that police forces could run AI on targeted or known footage of perpetrators. Or, use AI on random and public cameras without storing anything they find. Something like that. But how do you make sure police forces adhere to those rules? What will be the controls? And that last sentence scares me as well (right of safety vs right of privacy, where do you draw the line?)
Welcome to your Belgian Dystopia.
Next up: social credit system.
Fuck this.
Ik denk dat ik er in die photo op het eerste zicht toch al 2 of 3 identificeer en dat zonder AI, hé mannekes!
And of course the same technologies could be used to track political opponents, activists or whoever the people in power classify as “undesirables”.
But it’s not like Europe is shifting more and more to the Right so I’m sure that won’t become an issue in the future… /s
We already know where they are located. In the EU parliament.
So they don’t want to use cameras to catch dangerous people using their smartphone behind the wheel because of “privacy concerns”, but they don’t see a problem with literal dystopian face tracking AI?
Kind of shows that they ended the smartphone detection cameras because their friends were complaining about fines and that it has nothing to do with privacy.
Wordt AI nog niet gebruikt voor fraudedetectie?
Maybe use AI to figure out where all the money is going into?
Thats step one
If it works as intended it should pre-flag all politicians as potential criminals.
Maybe De Wever can have a Proof of Concept with Ultras at football games in Antwerp.
(And yes, step 1 into Dystopia)
Using that fucked up weirdo Peter Thiel’s Palantir no doubt?
Use it in goverment more, it will help with the bureaucratic mess and force those people to actually get out of their chairs and do useful stuff which they are paid to do by the taxpayer.
Imagine how many people frauding their fietsvergoeding we can now find!
Facial recognition should not be a thing, ever. Even less more storing that data.
A good use of AI/ML would be scanning the vast amount of data we have to find potential fraud, both from employers and employees. Training models on those caught committing fraud, and having that model scan through all employment and fiscal data to find other potential targets to investigate, could actually help those bullshit “we will find 1 billion worth of fraud this year so we’ll already add it to our budget!” claims by the government.
Calm down people, I’ve worked on government IT projects. This will be outsourced to some Kronos company whose leadership just happens to be friends with the minister (just a coincidence though, please don’t look into it). They’ll send their absolute best senior consultants, fresh from university, to solve the case. Then, when the project doesn’t actually advance or produce any tangible results, they will just hire more consultants to fix the issues!
Comments are closed.