Today, MEPs shall approve the outcome of the trilogue negotiations on the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), establishing new rules that shall regulate the use of artificial intelligence in the EU for the first time. Sadly, the European Parliament’s position aiming for a comprehensive ban on biometric mass surveillance technologies was completely changed during the intransparent trilogue negotiations. The new law will now effectively allow law enforcement the introduction of error-prone facial surveillance and facial recognition camera software in public spaces. Therefore, Pirate Party MEPs won’t be able to support the text and will vote agai

Patrick Breyer, Member of the European Parliament for the German Pirate Party, comments:

“The European Parliament set out to ban biometric mass surveillance in Europe, but is ending up legitimising it. Chilling monitoring of our behaviour and ubiquitous real-time face surveillance in public spaces, error-prone biometric identification used on CCTV recordings even for petty offences, racial classification of persons, unscientific AI ‚video lie detector‘ technology – none of these dystopian technologies will be off limits for EU governments, including illiberal governments such as Hungary’s. Rather than protecting us from these authoritarian instruments, the AI Act provides an instruction manual for governments to roll out biometric mass surveillance in Europe. As important as it is to regulate AI technology, defending our democracy against being turned into a high-tech surveillance state is not negotiable for us Pirates.”

Marcel Kolaja, Member and Quaestor of the European Parliament for the Czech Pirate Party and the opinion rapporteur of the AI Act in the Culture and Education Committee (CULT), comments:

“The AI Act is a disappointment to me. There is a clear need for rules on artificial intelligence. However, the current form that has emerged from the negotiations with national governments falls short of what it should have done. The national governments have inserted a section that de facto creates a legal framework for widespread snooping on people by biometric cameras. Such cameras, equipped with artificial intelligence, are able to recognise people’s faces and thus keep track of who has been where, when, and with whom. The AI Act should have banned such an Orwellian tool, but instead it explicitly legalises it. That’s an invasion of privacy that Pirates will never raise a hand for. It’s a shame, because the AI Act has also its positives. I’m for example glad that I was able to negotiate rules for so-called e-proctoring. Programs that are used to check on students when they take exams online. If the artificial intelligence is poorly trained, it can evaluate, for example, noise from the hallway in a dorm as cheating. Given the impact this can have on a young person’s life, it’s worth keeping an eye on and making sure the program works as it should. Unfortunately, in the end, when it comes to the AI Act, the negatives outweigh the positives.”

patrick-breyer.de/en/pirates-a…

In the morning at 4 am, the negotiations (trialogue) on the creation of a European Health Data Space (EHDS) ended behind closed doors without a deal. Negotiations were postponed to next Thursday. One of the negotiators, MEP and civil rights activist Patrick Breyer from the Pirate Party, explains what is at stake in the negotiations:

“Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, you could see your sexually transmitted diseases and sexual disorders, impotence and infertility, abortions, addictions and mental illnesses transferred to health ministries, universities and health insurance companies – without any patient control, without a guaranteed right to opt-out or any requirement for consent, even for the most intimate conditions. The patient data could be accessible under a pseudonym and remain identifiable. Ultimately, this could mean the end of medical confidentiality and deterring patients from seeking urgently needed treatments for fear of stigmatisation, possibly even resulting in suicides. Profit interests could be blatantly prioritised over the interests of patients.

The EU Parliament has been calling for a Europe-wide, guaranteed and full right for patients to opt out of their health data being passed on to third parties, but it is encountering fierce resistance from EU governments and the EU Commission. Even the existing national rights to opt out of the transfer of data to third parties could come under pressure eventually if no right to object applies in other EU states and their ‘pharmaceutical industry’ therefore complains of being disadvantaged.

Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, it will be impossible for patients to use the national electronic health system without their data being accessible across borders throughout the EU. Independent certification of the security of European health data systems may not be required . And the storage of our patient records threatens to be permitted even outside Europe, for example in the USA.

Overall, EU governments and the EU Commission want to accumulate, interconnect and pass on the most sensitive patient records without wanting to guarantee patients’ control over their data. , ‘Anything goes, no obligations’ is not an approach that patients can trust. Without trust, a European Health Data Space cannot exist. According to surveys, more than 80% of EU citizens want to decide for themselves about the transfer of their patient records to third parties. I will do my utmost in the final negotiations to fight for citizens’ right to privacy and medical confidentiality.”

patrick-breyer.de/en/european-…

Tonight from 6 pm, the presumed final round of negotiations (trialogue) on the creation of a European Health Data Space (EHDS) will take place behind closed doors. One of the negotiators, MEP and civil rights activist Patrick Breyer from the Pirate Party, explains what is at stake in the negotiations:

“Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, you could see your sexually transmitted diseases and sexual disorders, impotence and infertility, abortions, addictions and mental illnesses sold off to tech companies and the pharmaceutical industry for ‘product development’ or for training AI products, to health ministries and health insurance companies, to teaching staff for showing patient records in lectures – without any patient control, without a guaranteed right to opt outor requirement for consent, even for the most intimate conditions. The patient data could be accessible under a pseudonym and remain identifiable. Ultimately, this could mean the end of medical confidentiality and deterring patients from seeking urgently needed treatments for fear of stigmatisation, possibly even resulting in suicides. Profit interests could be blatantly prioritised over the interests of patients.

The EU Parliament is calling for a Europe-wide, guaranteed and full right for patients to opt out of their health data being passed on to third parties, but is encountering fierce resistance from EU governments and the EU Commission. Even the existing national rights to opt out of the transfer of data for research purposes, is at stake in the negotiations and could be restricted. In any case, they could come under pressure eventually if no right to object applies in other EU states and their ‘pharmaceutical industry’ therefore complains of being disadvantaged.

Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, it will be impossible for patients to use the national electronic health system without their data being accessible across borders throughout the EU. Independent certification of the security of European health data systems may notbe required . And the storage of our patient records threatens to be permitted even outside Europe, for example in the USA.

Overall, EU governments and the EU Commission want to accumulate, interconnect and pass on the most sensitive patient records without wanting to guarantee patients’ control over their data. , ‘Anything goes, no obligations’ is not an approach that patients can trust. Without trust, a European Health Data Space cannot exist. According to surveys, more than 80% of EU citizens want to decide for themselves about the transfer of their patient records to third parties. I will do my utmost in the final negotiations to fight for citizens’ right to privacy and medical confidentiality.”

patrick-breyer.de/en/european-…