Архив статей журнала
The authors discuss the problem of digital facial recognition technologies in the context of implementation of individual rights and freedoms. The analysis is focused on whether their use is legitimate and on interpretation of the provisions behind the underlying procedures. The authors note a significant range of goals to be addressed through the use of smart digital systems already at the goal-setting stage: economy, business, robotics, geological research, biophysics, mathematics, biophysics, avionics, security systems, health, etc. Higher amounts of data and a broader range of technologically complex decision-making objectives require to systematize the traditional methods and to develop new decision-making methodologies and algorithms. Progress of machine learning and neural networks will transform today’s digital technologies into self-sustained and self-learning systems intellectually superior to human mind. Video surveillance coupled with smart facial recognition technologies serves above all public security purposes and can considerably impact modern society. The article is devoted to the theme of legitimate use of digital facial recognition technologies and to the interpretation of provisions laying down the underlying procedures. The authors’ research interests assume an analysis of legal approaches to uphold human rights as digital facial recognition systems are increasingly introduced into social practices in Russia, European Union, United Kingdom, United States, China. The purpose of article is to shed light on regulatory details around the use of AI systems for remote biometric identification of persons in the process of statutory regulation. Methods: formal logic, comparison, analysis, synthesis, correlation, generalization. Conclusions: the analysis confirms that facial recognition technologies are progressing considerably faster than their legal regulation. Deployment of such technologies make possible ongoing surveillance, a form of collecting information on private life of persons. It is noted that accounting for these factors requires amending the national law in order to define the status and the rules of procedure for such data, as well as the ways to inform natural persons that information associated with them is being processed.
The article explores the impact of AI on legal systems globally. It highlights how technology, particularly AI, disrupts social order and power dynamics, necessitating legal adaptations. The document categorizes global AI regulatory responses into four types: no response, reliance on existing tech regulations, fragmented solutions, and unified approaches. The European Union (EU) has adopted a unified approach with the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA), aiming to harmonize AI rules, address risks, and stimulate AI development. The United States employs a piecemeal approach with the National Artificial Intelligence Act of 2020 and various state laws and executive orders. Australia lacks specific AI legislation, but it has an AI Action Plan focusing on economic benefits and talent development. South Africa’s National AI Policy Framework emphasizes economic transformation and social equity. The African Union’s Continental AI Strategy aims for socio-economic transformation while addressing AI risks. Canada has a Voluntary Code of Conduct and a proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA). The document critiques current AI regulations for incomplete definitions and a lack of focus on the broader societal purpose of AI. It stresses the need for regulations to consider ethical dimensions and societal impacts. The document concludes that AI regulation must balance innovation with social order, human dignity, and safety, emphasizing the urgent need to address AI’s energy and water consumption to prevent potential global instability.