Finally, the broader human rights implications of FRTs will be briefly considered, including the potential that such technologies may entrench and further prolong occupations, while simultaneously rendering an Occupying Power's control more invisible, remote and less reliant on the physical presence of troops. It will be concluded that Israel's reported use of FRTs in surveillance appear prima facie to fail to satisfy the cumulative requirements of lawfulness, legitimate aims, necessity and proportionality, even where these are interpreted by reference to the more permissive framework of IHL as the body of law which specifically applies to contexts of belligerent occupation. Israel's obligations toward Palestinians’ right to privacy under IHRL, and the permissible limitations on this right, will then be analysed. It will be demonstrated that the law of occupation provides a flexible framework applicable to contemporary occupations and technologies, but grants only general guidance for balancing the humanitarian interests threatened by FRTs with the military exigencies of the Occupying Power, creating a lacuna that may be filled by international human rights law (IHRL). International humanitarian law (IHL) will then be applied to Israel's use of FRTs within its security measures in the oPt. Application of FRTs by militaries will then be briefly examined, focusing on recent media revelations regarding Israel's reported deployment of FRTs at checkpoints and in automated surveillance inside the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). This article will first describe the contemporary domestic uses of FRTs and concerns that have arisen regarding civil liberties and freedoms. Nevertheless, the international legal framework governing such uses remains largely unexplored. These technologies are also increasingly deployed by militaries in the conduct of hostilities and the control of populations and territories held under occupation. Ethical and legal debates have inevitably arisen, particularly concerning compliance of States’ domestic uses of FRTs with their human rights obligations. The mass processing of biometric data and identification of individuals in public spaces means that FRTs may, however, interfere with privacy on a massive scale. To policing and intelligence agencies, FRTs promise increased reach and efficiency in the surveillance of perceived security threats and criminals. At least seventy-five governments are known to use AI-powered surveillance technologies, 1 including “predictive policing” systems that aggregate and analyse data to predict potential crime, “smart city” platforms that monitor crowd behaviour, and facial recognition technologies (FRTs) which permit rapid, covert and automated identification of individuals from distance. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have given rise to security and surveillance technologies of hitherto unthinkable scope, speed and intrusiveness. Consideration is also paid to corollary human rights impacts of these technologies, and the potential that they may entrench an Occupying Power's control while simultaneously rendering this control more invisible, remote and less reliant on the physical presence of troops. What is known of Israel's use of FRTs in surveillance appears prima facie not to satisfy the cumulative IHRL criteria for limitations on the right to privacy – legality, legitimate aims, necessity and proportionality – even where these are broadened by reference to IHL. The relevant legal framework is completed through the concurrent application of an Occupying Power's international human rights law (IHRL) obligations. It is demonstrated that IHL provides flexible, but incomplete, provisions for balancing an Occupying Power's right to employ surveillance technologies within its measures of control and security against the imprecisely defined humanitarian interests of the population under occupation. This article seeks to establish the international legal framework governing an Occupying Power's deployment of FRTs, particularly in surveillance, and apply it to Israel's uses in the oPt. Despite growing academic and judicial scrutiny of the legal implications of these technologies for privacy and freedom of assembly in domestic contexts, scant attention has been paid to their uses by militaries in contexts where international humanitarian law (IHL) applies. In 2019, media investigations revealed that Israel had added facial recognition technologies (FRTs) to the panoply of security and surveillance technologies deployed in its administration and control of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |