EPIC urges Dutch Data Protection Authority to Protect Students and Employees from the Harms of Emotion Recognition

On December 17^th, EPIC filed comments with the Dutch data protection authority, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, regarding use of and prohibitions on emotion recognition surveillance. The EU AI Act prohibits the development, deployment, and placement on the EU market of emotion recognition systems intended for use in the workplace and in educational institutions, with limited exceptions where the algorithm is intended for certain medical or safety reasons. Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens opened a consultation requesting feedback on the implementation of this prohibition.

EPIC’s comments discuss some of the common types of emotion recognition, the harms of emotion recognition systems and their inefficacy, common uses and risks in the education and workplace settings, and recommendations. EPIC urges Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens to define emotion recognition systems broadly and either allow for no exemptions or construe the medical and safety exemption narrowly. This recommendation is based the complete lack of scientific evidence that these systems work and the many ways they violate the rights to privacy, data protection, freedom from discrimination, and various other rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other EU regulations.

EPIC consistently works to protect against the spread of biometric surveillance and protect civil liberties and privacy rights. Previously, EPIC submitted a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission on a job application screening tool using emotion recognition, advised the United States Department of Education on the harms of emotion recognition, and warned the United States Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security about the lack of efficacy and highly invasive nature of emotion recognition technologies. EPIC also regularly engages with international partners on surveillance issues, including recent comments to the Canadian Office of the Privacy Commissioner and to the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioners Office on the use of biometric data more broadly.