The AI Act, which is now set to be finally adopted by MEPs in April, provides some specific rules for the use of emotion recognition systems (ERS) for law enforcement. For instance, police authorities deploying ERS are not required to inform people when they are exposed to these systems.
The use of AI systems that claim to infer emotions from biometrics (such as face, and voice) is only prohibited “in the areas of workplace and education institutions” (subject to an unclear ‘safety’ exception), not in contexts such as law enforcement and migration.
The scientific validity of ERS raises serious concerns, notably since the expression of emotions varies considerably across cultures and situations, and even within a single person, thus not only being inaccurate but also inherently discriminatory.
The scientific basis of facial-emotion recognition systems has been called into question, by equating their assumptions with pseudo-scientific theories, such as phrenology or physiognomy.
It is about systems such as IBorderCtrl, where a virtual policeman uses a webcam to scan your face and eye movements for signs of lying. At the end of the interview, the system provides you with a QR code that you have to show to a guard when you arrive at the border. The guard scans the code using a handheld tablet device, takes your fingerprints, and reviews the facial image captured by the avatar to check if it corresponds with your passport. The guard’s tablet displays a score out of 100, telling him whether the machine has judged you to be truthful or not.
In addition to the ‘snake-oil AI’ issue, there is more:
First, the intrusive nature of these systems will certainly increase the imbalance of power between the person concerned and the public authority.
