A survey conducted by the Center for Studies on Security and Citizenship Cesec, released on Thursday (4), showed that the majority of civilian police in Brazil are already using facial recognition software in criminal investigations.
Of the 26 federal states, as well as the Federal District, the civil police in 14 states use some software. In 13 states, security departments use recognition software, and in three states the state attorney general’s office uses this tool.
The research also shows that departments in seven states use body cameras on police officers’ uniforms. Three other states have submitted bids to purchase the equipment and one state is implementing the installation.
The survey was conducted based on responses obtained via LAI (Law on Access to Information) and active research on transparency portals.
The research claims to have found information bottlenecks. Among the security departments, four denied using facial recognition technology, and 12 did not provide information; Among civilian police, only three detailed costs or contracts. In the Public Prosecution, 15 people denied using it, and ten did not report it.
The Code of Criminal Procedure regulates confession through photography, which is an old and traditional police procedure. In the era of social networks, the police station photo album began to be supplemented or replaced with the use of programs that perform automatic recognition.
The survey questions the practice, arguing that there is weak evidence and that research suggests confession has contributed to unfair arrests and convictions.
According to the research, the civil police in:
- Parana
- Rio de Janeiro
- Holy Spirit
- Goiás
- Federal District
- Mato Grosso do Sul
- Matto Grosso
- Roraima
- Maranhão
- Ciara
- Bahia
- Sergipe
- Rio Grande do Norte
- Paraiba
States where civilian police do not use this technology, but have security departments that do, are:
- Rondonia
- acre
- Pernambuco
- Alagoas
In Amapa, the state Public Ministry uses some programs, and other agencies have not responded. Sao Paulo did not respond.
Cesec director Pablo Nunes says the program most contracted by countries is the US Clearview AI, which on its website promises more than 60 billion images in the database and 99% accuracy in demographic data. The declaration also includes regulations to facilitate the organization of investigations.
According to Cesec, Clearview collects images on social networks and public sites without consent. The program has already been banned or restricted in European countries, Canada and Australia.
“The system sells a huge amount of images that bots collect every day on the Internet, on public profiles on social networks and Google Images,” says Pablo Nunes. “From a legal point of view, there is a serious problem with the operation of this system because it does not ask for the consent of the people who process the images.”
The researcher states that there is still no legislation regulating the responsible use of facial recognition programs. A bill setting standards for artificial intelligence systems is being processed in the chamber.
The project, which originated in the Senate, had a special committee created to discuss the topic.
Regarding body cameras, they stated that they use:
- Rio Grande do Sul
- Sao Paulo
- Minas Gerais
- Rio de Janeiro
- Bahia
- Paraiba
- to
Piauí, Alagoas and Acre said they had bid, and Amazonas was in the process of being installed. Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Tocantins, Sergipe and Ceara have stated that they do not use it.
Goiás, Espirito Santo, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Norte, Rondônia and Amapa did not report; Roraima and Maranhão are classified as inconclusive uses.
“We had no official response to justify not using the cameras,” says Pablo Nunes. “Many governors rely on the idea that public safety means allowing police officers to do whatever they want.”
“There was a reluctance to send responses, and this is revealing. Cameras are devices that can be used in an integrated way, in a policy to control lethality, or they can be distorted. What matters most is not whether the police have them or not, but whether these cameras are used to reduce lethality.”