Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:55:50.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automating occupation: International humanitarian and human rights law implications of the deployment of facial recognition technologies in the occupied Palestinian territory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2021

Rohan Talbot
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2019, media investigations revealed that Israel had added facial recognition technologies (FRTs) to the panoply of security and surveillance technologies deployed in its administration and control of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). Despite growing academic and judicial scrutiny of the legal implications of these technologies for privacy and freedom of assembly in domestic contexts, scant attention has been paid to their uses by militaries in contexts where international humanitarian law (IHL) applies. This article seeks to establish the international legal framework governing an Occupying Power's deployment of FRTs, particularly in surveillance, and apply it to Israel's uses in the oPt. It is demonstrated that IHL provides flexible, but incomplete, provisions for balancing an Occupying Power's right to employ surveillance technologies within its measures of control and security against the imprecisely defined humanitarian interests of the population under occupation. The relevant legal framework is completed through the concurrent application of an Occupying Power's international human rights law (IHRL) obligations. What is known of Israel's use of FRTs in surveillance appears prima facie not to satisfy the cumulative IHRL criteria for limitations on the right to privacy – legality, legitimate aims, necessity and proportionality – even where these are broadened by reference to IHL. Consideration is also paid to corollary human rights impacts of these technologies, and the potential that they may entrench an Occupying Power's control while simultaneously rendering this control more invisible, remote and less reliant on the physical presence of troops.

Keywords

international humanitarian lawsurveillance technologiesfacial recognition technologieslaw of occupationinternational human rights lawright to privacy
Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 102 , Issue 914: Emerging Voices , August 2020 , pp. 823 - 849
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the ICRC.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Steven Feldstein, The Global Expansion of AI Surveillance, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Working Paper, September 2019, available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/files/WP-Feldstein-AISurveillance_final1.pdf (all internet references were accessed in November 2021).

2 Leong, Benda, “Facial Recognition and the Future of Privacy: I Always Feel Like … Somebody's Watching Me”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 75, No. 3, 2019, p. 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Madhumita Murgia, ”Who's Using Your Face? The Ugly Truth About Facial Recognition”, Financial Times, 19 April 2019, available at: https://www.ft.com/content/cf19b956-60a2-11e9-b285-3acd5d43599e.

4 Gates, Kelly A., Our Biometric Future: Facial Recognition Technology and the Culture of Surveillance, New York University Press, New York, 2011, p. 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 B. Leong, above note 2, p. 109.

6 Brian Martin, Statement before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommitee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law: “What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties”, 18 July 2012, p. 4, available at: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/12-7-18MartinTestimony.pdf.

7 ICRC, “Rewards and Risks in Humanitarian AI: An Example”, Inspired Blog, 6 September 2019, available at: https://blogs.icrc.org/inspired/2019/09/06/humanitarian-artificial-intelligence.

8 Gates, Kelly A., “Identifying the 9/11 ‘Faces of Terror’”, Cultural Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4–5, 2006, p. 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Ibid.

10 B. Leong, above note 2, p. 112.

11 Gretta L. Goodwin, “Testimony Before the Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of Representatives”, United States Government Accountability Office, 2019, p. 12, available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-579t.pdf.

12 Big Brother Watch, Face Off: The Lawless Growth of Facial Recognition in UK Policing, London, May 2018, p. 5, available at: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Face-Off-final-digital-1.pdf.

13 Ibid., p. 1.

14 K. A. Gates, above note 4, p. 64.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., p. 46.

17 Acquisti, Alessandro, Gross, Ralph and Stutzman, Frederic, “Face Recognition and Privacy in the Age of Augmented Reality”, Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2014, p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Al Franken, Opening Statement before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommitee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law: “What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties”, 18 July 2012, available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg86599/html/CHRG-112shrg86599.htm

19 K. A. Gates, above note 4, p. 34.

20 Tendayi Achiume, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, UN Doc. A/HRC/44/57, 18 June 2020, paras. 38–43.

21 B. Leong, above note 2, p. 113.

22 T. Achiume, above note 20, para. 12.

23 Laura Mills and Maya Wang, “Facial Recognition Deal in Kyrgyzstan Poses Risks to Rights”, Human Rights Watch, 15 November 2019, available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/15/facial-recognition-deal-kyrgyzstan-poses-risks-rights.

24 Rosalind Adams, “Hong Kong Protesters Are Worried About Facial Recognition Technology. But There Are Many Other Ways They're Being Watched”, BuzzFeed News, 17 August 2019, available at: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/hong-kong-protests-paranoia-facial-recognition-lasers.

25 Umberto Bacchi, “Fears Raised Over Facial Recognition Use at Moscow Protests”, Reuters, 4 February 2021, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-protests-tech-idUSL8N2KA54T.

26 S. Feldstein, above note 1, p. 7.

27 See, for example, Pete Fussey and Daragh Murray, Independent Report on the London Metropolitan Police Service's Trial of Live Facial Recognition Technology, Project Report, Universty of Essex Human Rights Centre, 2019.

28 David Kaye, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, UN Doc. A/HRC/41/35, 28 May 2019, para. 46; Amos Toh, “Rules for a New Surveillance Reality”, Human Rights Watch, 18 November 2019, available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/18/rules-new-surveillance-reality.

29 D. Kaye, above note 28, para. 66.

30 K. A. Gates, above note 8, p. 432.

31 K. A. Gates, above note 4, p. 104.

32 Dave Gershgorn, “This Is How the U.S. Military's Massive Facial Recognition System Works”, OneZero, 6 November 2019, available at: https://onezero.medium.com/exclusive-this-is-how-the-u-s-militarys-massive-facial-recognition-system-works-bb764291b96d.

33 Ibid.

34 United States Government Accountability Office, DOD Biometrics and Forensics, Report to Congressional Committees, August 2017, available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-580.pdf.

35 Daily Sabah, “Domestically-Developed Kamikaze Drones to Join Turkish Army's Inventory as of 2020”, 12 September 2019, available at: https://www.dailysabah.com/defense/2019/09/12/domestically-developed-kamikaze-drones-to-join-turkish-armys-inventory-as-of-2020.

36 Amitai Ziv, “This Israeli Face-Recognition Startup is Secretly Tracking Palestinians”, Haaretz, 15 July 2019, available at: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/.premium-this-israeli-face-recognition-startup-is-secretly-tracking-palestinians-1.7500359.

37 Olivia Solon, “Why Did Microsoft Fund an Israeli Firm that Surveils West Bank Palestinians?”, NBC News, 28 October 2019, available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/why-did-microsoft-fund-israeli-firm-surveils-west-bank-palestinians-n1072116.

38 Daniel Estrin, “Face Recognition Lets Palestinians Cross Israeli Checkposts Fast, But Raises Concerns”, NPR, 22 August 2019, available at: https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/752765606/face-recognition-lets-palestinians-cross-israeli-checkposts-fast-but-raises-conc.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Six checkpoints in the city were installed with FRTs in 2015, “allowing for total separation between the soldiers or Border Police officers staffing them and the Palestinians passing through them”: see B'Tselem, Playing the Security Card: Israeli Policy in Hebron as a Means to Effect Forcible Transfer of Local Palestinians, Jerusalem, September 2019, p. 16.

42 A. Ziv, above note 36.

43 Amos Harel, “Israel Speeds Up Camera Placements in West Bank in Effort to Deter Terrorism”, Haaretz, 22 June 2017, available at: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-idf-speeds-up-camera-placements-in-w-bank-in-effort-to-deter-terrorism-1.5485764.

44 O. Solon, above note 37.

45 Who Profits, “Big Brother” in Jerusalem's Old City: Israel's Militarized Visual Surveillance System in Occupied East Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, November 2018, pp. 4–11.

46 Nadim Nashif and Marwa Fatafta, Surveillance of Palestinians and the Fight for Digital Rights, Policy Brief, Al Shabaka, 23 October 2017, available at: https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/surveillance-palestinians-fight-digital-rights.

47 Human Rights Watch (HRW), Born Without Rights: Israel's Use of Draconian Military Orders to Repress Palestinians in the West Bank, New York, November 2019, pp. 48–9.

48 Shoshanna Solomon, “As AnyVision Probed, Israeli Watchdog Urges Curbs on Sales of Surveillance Tech”, Times of Israel, 18 November 2019, available at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-anyvision-probed-israeli-watchdog-urges-curbs-on-sales-of-surveillance-tech.

49 Benvenisti, Eyal, The International Law of Occupation, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, p. 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (entered into force 26 January 1910) (Hague Regulations), Art. 42.

51 E. Benvenisti, above note 49, p. 208.

52 Ibid., p. 206.

53 Supreme Court of Israel, Beit Sourik Village Council v. Israel and IDF Commander in the West Bank, HCJ 2056/04, 2004, para. 23.

54 Yoram Dinstein, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019, pp. 31–3.

55 Adam Roberts, “Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 84, No. 1, p. 69.

56 See, for example, UNSC Res. 2334, 23 December 2016.

57 See, for example, UNSC Res. 73/97, 18 December 2018.

58 International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, para. 78.

59 A. Roberts, above note 55, p. 51.

60 While the ICRC's English translation references “public order and safety”, a more authoritative translation of the original French (“l'ordre et le vie publics”) is “public order and civil life”. See Y. Dinstein, above note 54, p. 99.

61 Hague Regulations, above note 50, Art. 43.

62 E. Benvenisti, above note 49, p. 69.

63 Schwenk, Edmund, “Legislative Power of the Military Occupant Under Article 43, Hague Regulations”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 2, 1945, p. 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Sassòli, Marco, “Legislation and Maintenance of Public Order and Civil Life by Occupying Powers”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2005, p. 664CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC IV), Art. 27(1).

66 Ibid., Art. 27(3).

67 Ibid., Art. 27(4).

68 Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. 4: Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, p. 207.

69 ICRC, “Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Armed Conflict: A Human-Centred Approach”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 102, No. 913, 2020, p. 469Google Scholar.

70 ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, Report to 33rd International Conference of the ICRC, Geneva, 12 December 2019, p. 21.

71 Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/37/42, 21 February 2018.

72 Zureik, Elia, “Strategies of Surveillance: The Israeli Gaze”, Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 66, 2016, p. 14Google Scholar.

73 Report of the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/44, 20 January 2016.

74 Ibid., para. 30.

75 ICJ, above note 58, paras. 133–7.

76 GC IV, above note 65, Art. 27(1).

77 Supreme Court of Israel, Beit Sourik case, above note 53, para. 39.

78 J. Pictet, above note 68, p. 201.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid., p. 202.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.

83 Y. Dinstein, above note 54, p. 94.

84 Iris van der Heijden, “Other Issues Relating to the Treatment of Civilians in Enemy Hands”, in Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta and Marco Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 1243.

85 ICRC, above note 70, p. 29.

86 Fifth Periodic Submitted by Israel Report Under Article 40 of ICCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/5, 30 October 2019, paras. 22–6.

87 Lubell, Noam, “Human Rights Obligations in Military Occupation”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 94, No. 885, 2012, p. 318CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, para. 178.

89 HRC, Concluding Observations on the Third Periodic Review of Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3, 3 September 2010, para 5.

90 ICJ, above note 58, para. 106.

91 Y. Dinstein, above note 54, p. 95.

92 ICJ, above note 58, para. 106.

93 Y. Dinstein, above note 54, p. 95.

94 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 25.

95 HRC, General Comment No. 31, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004, para. 11.

96 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Zukovic, Case No. ICTY-96-23-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 22 February 2001, paras. 465–97.

97 Ibid., para. 471.

98 Prud'homme, Nancie, “Lex Specialis: Oversimplifying a More Complex and Multifaceted Relationship?”, Israel Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2007, pp. 382–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Ibid., p. 387.

100 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 115 UNTS 331, 23 May 1969 (entered into force 27 January 1980), Art. 31(2)(c).

101 N. Prud'homme, above note 98, p. 387. See also Orna Ben-Naftali and Yuval Shany, “Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories”, Israel Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2003, pp. 56–7.

102 Ibid., p. 56.

103 P. Fussey and D. Murray, above note 27.

104 ICCPR, 999 UNTS 171, 16 December 1966 (entered into force 23 March 1976), Art. 17.

105 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/39/29, 3 August 2018, para. 5.

106 HRC, Concluding Observations on the Seventh Periodic Review of Colombia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/COL/7, 17 November 2016, para. 32.

107 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, above note 105, para. 6.

108 ECtHR, Peck v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 44647/98, Judgment, 28 January 2003, para. 57.

109 Ibid., para. 59.

110 HRC, General Comment 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev9, 8 April 1988, paras. 3–4.

111 HRC, Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, Views, UN Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992, 31 March 1994, para. 8.3.

112 HRC, above note 95, para. 6.

113 Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/37, 30 June 2014, para. 23.

114 O. Ben-Naftali and Y. Shany, above note 101, p. 105.

115 HRC, above note 110, para. 3.

116 OHCHR, above note 113, para. 23.

117 Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/40, 17 April 2013, para. 81.

118 ECtHR, The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 6538/74, Judgment, 26 April 1979, para. 49.

119 Hague Regulations, above note 50, Art. 43; GC IV, above note 65, Art. 64.

120 HRW, above note 47, p. 2.

121 The Guardian, “Israeli Intelligence Veterans’ Letter to Netanyahu and Military Chiefs – In Full”, 12 September 2014, accessible at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/israeli-intelligence-veterans-letter-netanyahu-military-chiefs.

122 OHCHR, above note 113, para. 29.

123 HRC, General Comment 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev1/Add9, 1 November 1999, para. 11. This reflects similar limitations clauses of, for example, Art. 19 (freedom of expression) and Art. 21 (peaceful assembly).

124 OHCHR, above note 113, para. 24.

125 F. La Rue, above note 117, para. 60.

126 D. Kaye, above note 28, para. 50; P. Fussey and D. Murray, above note 27, p. 55.

127 The Guardian, above note 121.

128 HRC, above note 123, paras. 11 and 14.

129 Joseph Cannataci, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, UN Doc. A/HRC/40/63, 27 February 2019, paras. 11–21; F. La Rue, above note 117, para. 29.

130 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), 213 UNTS 222, 3 September 1953, Art. 8(2).

131 ECtHR, Sunday Times v. UK, above note 118, para. 59.

132 Ben Emmerson, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, UN Doc. A/69/397, 23 September 2014, para. 51.

133 HRC, above note 123, para. 14. See also OHCHR, above note 113, paras. 23–5.

134 OHCHR, above note 113, para. 25.

135 Nils Melzer, International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction, ICRC, Geneva, 2016, p. 225.

136 ICJ, above note 58, paras. 136–7.

137 HRC, above note 110, paras. 6–8.

138 ECtHR, S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom, App. Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, Judgment, 2008, para. 125.

139 B. Emmerson, above note 132, para. 18.

140 K. A. Gates, above note 4, p. 46.

141 Amnesty International, The Right to Peaceful Assembly: Submission to the UN Human Rights Council, London, March 2019, p. 25.

142 Big Brother Watch, above note 12, p. 15.

143 P. Fussey and D. Murray, above note 27, pp. 60–1.

144 B. Emmerson, above note 132, para. 52.

145 Equality and Human Rights Commission, Civil and Political Rights in Great Britain, London, March 2020, p. 64.

146 J. Pictet, above note 68, p. 202.

147 A. Roberts, above note 55, p. 45.

148 O. Ben-Naftali and Y. Shany, above note 101, p. 97; A. Roberts, above note 55, p. 71.

149 E. Benvenisti, above note 49, p. 75.

150 Jamayat Askan v. Commander of the IDF in Judea and Samaria, HCJ 393/82 (1983), para. 22.

151 HRC, General Comment 37: Article 21 (Right of Peaceful Assembly), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/37, 17 September 2020, para. 1.

152 D. Kaye, above note 28, para. 21.

153 HRC, above note 151, para. 61.

154 Legal Advisor for Judea and Samaria Region, Israeli Defense Forces Order No. 101: Regarding Prohibition of Incitement and Hostile Propaganda Actions (Translated by B'Tselem), 27 August 1967, available at: https://www.btselem.org/download/19670827_order_regarding_prohibition_of_incitement_and_hostile_propaganda.pdf.

155 See HRW, above note 47, p. 8; Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/17/Add2, 11 June 2012, para. 102.

156 HRW, above note 47, p. 7.

157 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation, Verso, London, 2007, p. 146.

158 E. Zureik, above note 72, p. 14.

159 ICJ, above note 58, para. 85.

160 Ibid., para. 134.

161 Ibid., para. 121.

162 E. Weizman, above note 157, p. 153.

163 Ibid., p. 150.

164 Ibid., pp. 156–9.

165 Julia Grignon, “The Geneva Conventions and the End of Occupation”, in A. Clapham, P. Gaeta and M. Sassòli (eds), above note 84, p. 1592.

166 Ian Scobbie, “Gaza”, in Elizabeth Wilmshurst (ed.), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, p. 314.

167 Ben-Naftali, Orna, Sfard, Michael and Viterbo, Hedi, The ABC of the OPT: A Legal Lexicon of the Israeli Control Over the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar7.

168 ICCPR, above note 104, Art. 1.

169 ICJ, above note 58, paras. 88 and 149.

170 Ibid., para. 121.

171 Ibid., paras. 134 and 122.

172 Michael Lynk, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967, UN Doc. A/72/43106, 23 October 2017, para. 62.

173 Michael Lynk, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967, UN Doc. A/HRC/37/75, 15 March 2018, para. 64.

174 ICJ, above note 58, para. 122.

175 N. Lubell, above note 87, p. 329. See also E. Benvenisti, above note 49, p. 349.