The EU AI Act’s Impact on Security Law
The rapid development of AI technologies not only has broad societal implications but also challenges legal concepts, institutions, and scholarship. This debate series fittingly features a diverse and international range of authors from both legal practice and academia, who explore the wide-ranging impact of the AI Act on European and German national security law.
This September, the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law and Verfassungsblog launched VB Security and Crime. We entered into this partnership because, as scholars, we believe it is crucial to explore new approaches to publishing that foster accessible forms of academic discourse. VB Security and Crime is intended as an open research hub that brings together a wide range of writers – national and international, junior and senior – for an open exchange of ideas that transcends traditional academic boundaries.
Today, we are delighted to introduce one of the first major products of VB Security and Crime: our debate series on the AI Act’s impact on security law, which exemplifies the goals of our project. The rapid development of AI technologies does not only have broad societal implications, it also challenges legal concepts, institutions and scholarship. It is thus fitting that this debate series features a diverse and international range of authors from both legal practice and academia, exploring the wide-ranging impact of the AI Act on both European and German national security law.
Substantively, this diversity reflects the growing influence of supranational legal instruments like the AI Act on certain areas of national police and criminal procedure law. While this development may create some tension with traditional concepts familiar to national lawyers, we are excited that internationalization also creates the opportunity for stimulating discussions on the VB Security and Crime.
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to all the authors for their contributions, as well as to Christian Thönnes, Robert Brockhaus and Marie Diekmann for their editorial and organizational work. We look forward to organizing at least one VB Security and Crime debate series per year. Stay tuned for more thought-provoking contributions!
Ralf Poscher, Tatjana Hörnle
Angesichts der Möglichkeiten automatisierter Datenanalyse wachsen bei den Sicherheitsbehörden die Begehrlichkeiten. Mit der im August 2024 in Kraft getretenen KI-Verordnung existiert eine Regelung, die die Gestaltung und Nutzung von Hochrisiko-KI-Systemen reguliert und dadurch die verfassungsrechtlichen sowie datenschutzrechtlichen Anforderungen an die polizeiliche Datenanalyse schärft. Für die gesetzlichen Vorgaben von Analysebefugnissen und deren Anwendung ist es entscheidend, klare Leitlinien für einen verantwortungsvollen und grundrechtsschonenden Einsatz von KI in Gefahrenabwehr und Strafverfolgung zu etablieren.
Continue reading >>
Kein anderes Thema hat die Gemüter beim Ringen um die KI-Verordnung der EU so sehr erhitzt wie die automatisierte Gesichtserkennung in der Strafverfolgung und ihre Regulierung. Jetzt stehen die Vorschriften für Gesichtserkennung und andere Methoden biometrischer Fernidentifizierung fest – zumindest der aller-äußerste Rahmen, den die KI-Verordnung festlegt. Diese Regelungen sind allerdings nur ein Anfang, mehr nicht.
Continue reading >>
Remote biometric identification (RBI) systems are increasingly becoming part of our daily lives. The most prominent example is the use of facial recognition technologies in public spaces (e.g. CCTV cameras). The AI Act regulates the use of RBI systems distinguishing between real-time and post RBI systems. While one of the main aims of the AIA was to ban real-time RBI systems, the Regulation failed to do so in an effective manner. Instead, it can be argued that the AIA still allows for a broad use of such systems.
Continue reading >>
Mit der Verabschiedung der KI-Verordnung wurde nicht nur ein Rechtsrahmen für den sicherheitsbehördlichen KI-Einsatz geschaffen, sondern erneut die Diskussion über eine kompetenzwidrige Europäisierung des Sicherheitsrechts aufgeworfen. Neben der Notwendigkeit gemeinsamer datenschutzrechtlicher Mindeststandards im Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts sprechen jedoch auch die Einhaltung grundrechtlicher Garantien und die in der KI-Verordnung vorgesehenen Regelungsspielräume der Mitgliedstaaten für die Zulässigkeit einer übergreifenden Regulierung des KI-Einsatzes durch den EU-Gesetzgeber.
Continue reading >>
In 2024, the EU legislators adopted a detailed national security exception to the AI Act, contravening prior EU case law. Beyond the possibility of a future ruling that would realign the AI Act’s scope with said case law, the impact of this exception might be limited by other applicable laws and the interpretative and practical difficulty of distinguishing between national and public security. The AI Act’s failure to sufficiently account for these intricacies risks further legal uncertainty within the already complex security landscape. Therefore, this blog post explores the challenges of implementing the exception of national security to the AI Act’s scope of application.
Continue reading >>The process of integrating European security law is imperfect and unfinished – given the constraints posed by the European Treaties, it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. This inevitable imperfection, lamentable as it may be, creates opportunities for legal scholarship. Legal scholars are needed to explore the gaps and cracks in this new security architecture and to ultimately develop proposals for how to fix them. This debate series, being a product of VB Security and Crime, takes the recently adopted AI Act as an opportunity to do just that: It brings together legal scholars, both German and international, in order to explain, analyze and criticize the EU AI Act’s impact on security law from both an EU and German national law perspective.
Continue reading >>
