生物识别——混杂着法律不确定性

在新西兰，警方希望在不久的将来升级到“先进的面部识别技术”。他们认为，新技术的应用将有助于识别面部图像可供比较的不明嫌犯。警方的目标是让现场执法人员直接通过手机在犯罪信息数据库中获取照片图像，以现场向目击者展示罪犯的图像。警方升级系统不需要修改隐私法。从表面上看，新西兰没有现行的法律法规来监管生物识别和隐私。
In New Zealand, the police hope to upgrade to “advanced facial recognition technology” in the near future. Officials believe that the deployment of new technology would assist in the identification of unknown offenders where facial images are available for comparison. The police’s objective is to have officers in the field obtain photo images directly on their phones from criminal information databases to help show witnesses images of offenders in the field. No amendments to the Privacy Act will be required in order for the police to upgrade its systems. Prima facie, there are no existing laws or regulations in New Zealand to govern biometrics and privacy.
在瑞典谢莱夫特奥，瑞典数据保护局对一所使用生物面部识别来记录学生出勤率的学校开出了20万瑞典克朗（约合20,650美元）的罚单，原因是该学校违反了欧洲一般数据保护条例(GDPR)。据监管部门的声明，谢莱夫特镇的一所高中通过面部生物识别技术进行了为期三周的每日考勤，当中包括22名学生的数据。这是瑞典第一起违反欧洲一般数据保护条例(GDPR)的案件。
In Skellefteå, Sweden, the data protection authority in Sweden has issued a penalty of SEK 200,000 (US$20,650) to a school which used biometric facial recognition to record student attendance for violating Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A high school in the town of Skellefteå used facial biometrics to conduct daily attendance checks in a trial that lasted three weeks, and included the data of 22 students, according to the regulator’s statement. It is the first case in Sweden for such breach GDPR.
在美国芝加哥，一位在芝加哥希尔顿酒店工作的客房部经理向州法院起诉该酒店，她声称被要求扫描指纹作为时间追踪认证方法，这违反了《伊利诺伊州生物识别信息隐私法》。泰勒·布克（Taylor Booker）在诉状中称，希尔顿酒店和逸林酒店非法收集、使用和储存她和其他小时工的“敏感和专有”的生物特征数据作为雇佣条件，且从未得到他们的事先同意。州法院必须决定所指控的索赔是否合法。
In Chicago, US, a housekeeper who worked at a Hilton hotel in Chicago has sued the hotel in state court, claiming she was required to scan her fingerprint as a time-tracking authentication method in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Taylor Booker, the named plaintiff, alleges in her complaint that Hilton and DoubleTree unlawfully collected, used and stored her and other hourly workers' "sensitive and proprietary" biometric data as a condition of employment without ever obtaining their informed consent. The state court has to decide whether the alleged claim is legally granted.