With a recently submitted and subsequently swiftly passed law amendment, the government side has created the legal basis for banning Pride. As per the amendment, not only the organisers but also the participants could find themselves punished. Moreover, they have also made it legally possible to identify members of the crowd using digital facial recognition systems. In light of these developments, we delved into the intricacies of facial recognition with Ádám Remport, an expert from the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (TASZ).
Facial recognition and analysis technology works as follows: the authority in question, for instance, the police, takes a picture of someone who needs to be identified. This image is sent to the National Expert and Research Centre (NSZKK), where facial analysis is performed using their database. The NSZKK database includes (without any personal or identifying information) photos from the address registry, ID cards, driving licences, and passports, as well as images from criminal, immigration, and refugee records. From these, the NSZKK generates a biometric imprint, known as a facial profile. The original photos are then deleted, leaving only the biometric imprints in the database.
When the NSZKK receives an image from the police for identification, an automated system first compares the image with the database, potentially yielding one or more matches. Previously, the process did not end there, as two separate experts had to perform the analysis independently, and it was considered a match only if both reached the same conclusion. However, a modification last year removed the need for human supervision in minor offence cases, speeding up the process at the cost of significantly increasing the chance of errors, particularly at mass events.
The system is not designed to be used on masses, but rather, to identify individuals or at most a few dozen people in case disturbances were to occur at, say, a protest or a football match. It is the photos of these individuals that would then be sent to the NSZKK.
Identifying every person in a crowd of tens of thousands is likely beyond the system’s capabilities and was not its intended function, either. If authorities attempted to identify everyone at such a large protest, it could possibly overwhelm Hungary’s facial recognition systems, stalling criminal and immigration proceedings
– noted the expert, who believes the government’s main goal is deterrence from participating in these demonstrations.
“Allowing this measure is clearly an intimidation tactic, with the purpose that it would be announced everywhere that facial recognition systems are to be utilised. This way, people may think that if they were to attend Pride, they will surely be identified and fined” – added Ádám Remport.
When asked whether Chinese authorities had the capabilities to identify a crowd of tens of thousands, his answer was yes. This question arose partly because media reports last year suggested that during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Budapest, discussions included the potential purchase of Chinese camera systems, though the Hungarian Foreign Ministry denied this.
“Hungary does not have such technology, and the process operates differently here. In China, surveillance is continuous and live, whereas in Hungary, it is based on retrospective, individual procedures, and this law amendment does not change that.
However, the fact that the Hungarian government can now use constant, automated surveillance with no or minimal human supervision to oversee protests constitutes a severe restriction of fundamental rights and is also contrary to EU law
– Remport pointed out.
There could also be technological barriers. Previously, due to a lack of funding, the nationwide surveillance network project, known as “Szitakötő” (Dragonfly), was effectively halted. This would have installed 35,000 surveillance cameras along roads, with its cost estimated at 50 billion forints in 2019.
The expert, however, believes that those attending Pride are not taking a significant risk. “I can imagine that they can selectively identify a relatively large number of people, but the more people attend, the lower the chances of anyone being fined. Moreover, those fined can appeal in court, and the fine of up to 200,000 forints could be reduced to a mere warning, without even requiring a trial” – the expert added.
The question arises whether it’s possible to trick the system by wearing a mask or painting one’s face. The Helsinki Committee advises against attending any protest in a mask, as it is considered a legal offence, and those without proper reason to wear one should not experiment with medical masks, either. In China, not even masks protect against facial recognition – authorities managed to identify citizens in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, a directive by the Hungarian National Police Headquarters regarding the use of such systems reveals that the country has not yet reached the level of Chinese technology in this area, as successful identification requires that
a significant portion of the face of the person to be identified must be visible.
Face paint does not seem like an effective solution either, as facial recognition systems monitor the distances between various points on the face, and this is theoretically not affected by face paint. However, the quality of captured images depends on lighting conditions and the angle from which they were taken. Since it is unknown exactly what software the NSZKK uses for identification, experts could not provide a definitive answer regarding the extent to which heavy face paint could reduce the chances of identification.
We contacted the NSZKK to inquire about the number of facial recognition requests they receive annually from state authorities, their processing time, as well as their error rate. We received the response that the National Police Headquarters coordinates their external communications, and our questions were forwarded there, but we received no reply from them.
Bárándy warned in advance
“I thought this would happen sooner, not just ten years later” – said lawyer Gergely Bárándy to 24.hu. As an MSZP MP in 2015, he expressed concerns during the debate on the bill regarding facial analysis records and systems, as highlighted in an article by 444. Bárándy feared that, without adequate legal safeguards, the system could be used for purposes beyond its original intent (national security, personal protection, crime prevention), such as identifying protesters. Government representatives, including then-State Secretary of the Ministry of Interior Tibor Pogácsás, denied this possibility, claiming that the legal framework regulated exactly which authorities could use such systems and for what purpose.
“One did not need to be a prophet to foresee that facial recognition systems would sooner or later be deployed to restrict the right to assembly” – Bárándy told our paper. He also argued that the Hungarian Constitution contains numerous ‘time bombs’ that the government can activate whenever needed. As an example, he cited a modification aimed at his former party.
“In 2013, when MSZP, the largest opposition party at the time, was approaching Fidesz in popularity, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution included a clause stating: “Political organisations legally recognised as successors of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party during the democratic transition share the responsibility of their predecessors as the holders of unlawfully accumulated assets as well.” Considering other constitutional provisions, this could have allowed the banning of the then-largest opposition party, or at least the confiscation of all of its assets, if needed. By today, this has been of course rendered irrelevant by the decline of MSZP’s support, but this should be evaluated in light of the political circumstances of the time. Regarding its purpose, this measure was similar to the one we are discussing now: counteracting diminishing public support through arbitrary legislation that creates the possibility of neutralising potential civil or political threats, thereby creating a legal framework for maintaining power that can be activated when needed – explained Gergely Bárándy, noting that this is a commonly employed tactic of regimes similar to that of Viktor Orbán.
The post The government’s facial recognition system to be used against protesters: here’s how it works first appeared on 24.hu.
Tovább az erdeti cikkre:: 24.hu
