Irish regulators clash over legal terms in bill on police use of biometric recognition

A law that would permit the Irish police to use retrospective facial recognition “lacks legal clarity” and could create tension with the EU AI Act, according to a legal expert and civil rights campaigners.

The Irish Parliament Upper House is currently debating the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025, which introduces new powers for biometric analysis by the Gardaí, including the ability to record people in public spaces using body-worn cameras and drones, and to track people through CCTV and recorded footage.

The regulation, however, raises “serious concerns” due to the powerful surveillance tools given to the Irish police, according to Róisín Á Costello, assistant professor of law at Trinity College Dublin and Olga Cronin, senior policy officer at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL).

The main issue is the introduction of a novel term, “biometric analysis,” which would allow the police to categorize people based on their biometric data, use biometrics to identify them and use the biometric data of known individuals to “localize” them.

The term “biometric analysis,” however, is in conflict with European regulation and could produce legal uncertainty.

“While the EU AI Act specifically defines ‘biometric categorization’ systems as AI systems that assign individuals to specific categories on the basis of biometric data, the 2025 Bill does not define this activity and does not take into account that this categorization is also considered a high-risk use of AI,” the experts write.

At the same time, safeguards for high-risk systems included in the AI Act are not present in the Recording Devices (Amendment) Bill.

The letter, published by ICCL, also raises other issues, including that the use of biometric tools like facial recognition has been connected to racial bias. Some of the shortcomings could be remedied by the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026. But even if that piece of regulation would “only ameliorate the fundamental ambiguities,” it adds.

Similar arguments were raised during the Fourth Stage reading of the Bill on Tuesday at the Upper House of Parliament.

Alice-Mary Higgins, an independent senator, said that using the “biometric analysis” term is a way to “sidestep” what is outlined in European legislation.

“Under the EU AI Act, when biometric identification is being conducted, there are requirements in terms of judicial approval and other safeguards,” Higgins says. “However, those do not apply when it comes to what is being described by the Government as biometric analysis.”

Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration Jim O’Callaghan responded by saying that the AI Act is a regulation that is directly effective regardless of the Irish Parliament.

“The real difference between biometric analysis and biometric identification […] is that biometric identification involves referencing biometric information against a database of such information,” says O’Callaghan. “That is different from biometric analysis. The latter is a means of filtering or sorting information to facilitate An Garda Síochána in speeding up a process of investigation.”

Article Topics

biometric analysis  |  biometrics  |  facial recognition  |  Ireland  |  law enforcement  |  legislation