Artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly important part of our lives and can be found in everything from fridges to phones. One of the applications of AI is the police use of facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes. However, the use poses a major risk to fundamental rights. As part of the European Commission's initiative to create a Union fit for the digital age, the proposal for an AI Act was introduced in 2021 with the aim of setting the limit of permissible use of AI. In the act, the use of real-time facial recognition is prohibited except for a few exceptions which the police in the Union argue will severely hinder their work. However, the scope of the prohibition is ambiguous, and the act is riddled with various problems in its regulation of facial recognition used for law enforcement purposes. This thesis will therefore critically analyse the AI Act on the basis of three research questions. The first question examines how the AI Act will affect current law and the police’s ability to use facial recognition for law enforcement purposes. This thesis finds regarding real-time facial recognition, the act will replace LED as applicable law. However, for high-risk applications of FRT, there will be an interplay between the two regulations. When it comes to the effect on the police’s use of FRT for law enforcement purposes, this thesis finds that the police have no bigger reason for worry. The exceptions make a myriad of otherwise prohibited uses of real-time FRT permissible, and the use of post-FRT is not regulated in the act. The second question analyses the problems with the act and the thesis finds that there are essentially four major problems with the act. The exceptions allow for a disproportionate amount of otherwise prohibited uses of FRT, it is too difficult to interpret and the mechanisms for futureproofing are lacking. Furthermore, the interplay with Prüm II must be considered to a greater extent. The third and final question provides three different solutions to the problems. The first solution is to reduce the scope of the exceptions. The second solution is to revise the high-risk provision to make it easier to add new systems. Finally, this thesis finds that the introduction of a separate regulation for law enforcement use, like GDPR & LED, would be a good solution.

Denna studie utforskar möjligheterna och utmaningarna som är förknippade med implementeringen av AI-drivet ansiktsigenkänningssystem i realtid inom svensk brottsbekämpning, i kontexten av den nya EU-lagstiftningen. Viktiga möjligheter inkluderar förbättrad effektivitet i brottsbekämpande verksamheter genom mer effektiva övervaknings- och identifieringsprocesser. Utmaningar såsom övertro till teknologi, black box-effekter och etiska dilemman utgör dock kritiska problem.  Metodiken för denna studie innefattar kvalitativa semistrukturerade intervjuer med både polisofficerare och AI-forskare, vilket ger en mer heltäckande bild av användningen av ansiktsigenkänningssystem. Resultaten indikerar en komplexitet där tekniska framsteg kan avsevärt förbättra brottsförebyggande och allmän säkerhet, men även medföra betydande risker för integritet och rättvisa. Studien avslutas med en diskussion om behovet av en balans mellan att förbättra brottsbekämpningens kapacitet och skydda grundläggande mänskliga rättigheter, samt rekommenderar starka riktlinjer och transparens för att säkerställa etisk användning av ansiktsigenkänningsteknologier. / This study explores the opportunities and challenges associated with the implementation of AI-driven real-time facial recognition technology within Swedish law enforcement, in the context of the new EU legislation. Key opportunities include enhanced efficiency in law enforcement practices through more effective surveillance and identification processes. However, challenges such as overreliance on technology, black box-effects, and ethical dilemmas are critical concerns.  The methodology for this study involves qualitative semi-structured interviews with both police officers and AI researchers, providing a comprehensive view of the deployment of facial recognition systems. Findings indicate a complex landscape where technological advances can significantly boost crime prevention and public security, yet pose substantial risks to privacy and fairness. The thesis concludes by discussing the need for a delicate balance between enhancing law enforcement  capabilities and safeguarding fundamental human rights, recommending strong guidelines and continuous oversight to ensure ethical usage of facial recognition technologies.

Research Questions: 1) What are the specific obligations and responsibilities that financialinstitutions may face if the use of AI technologies in AML/CFT is classified as a "High-Risk AISystems" under the proposed EU AI Act?2) How do financial institutions integrate AI technologies into AML/CFT complianceframeworks ensuring regulatory compliance and minimize risks?Purpose: Providing insights and recommendations that can help financial institutions navigatethe intersection of technological innovation and regulatory compliance in the AML/CFTdomain.Method: An exploratory multi-case study was employed within the qualitative approach withdoctrinal legal research to ensure alignment with the study's purpose. The data collection isbased on semi-structured interviews and EU legislations. An interpretive research paradigmand analysis through a thematic analysis was adopted.Conclusion: The research examines AI adoption in financial institutions for AML/CFTcompliance, combining theoretical insights, regulations, and interviews. It underscores theimportance of clear regulations, AI's efficiency in fraud detection, and the need for humanoversight. Outsourcing AI technologies while risk managing, balanced with internalcapabilities, is crucial. The proposed EU AI Act will provide additional regulatory clarity. Thestudy guides financial institutions in enhancing AML/CFT strategies through AI andintegrating technology with human knowledge, and regulatory adherence.

No description available.

En framtid där datorer kan tänka, är smartare än människor och tar över världen har framställts i många olika science fiction-filmer. Samtidigt finns det en stor fascination för den tekniska utvecklingen och de många fördelar som den medför. Det snabbt växande tekniska området artificiell intelligens (AI), som närmast beskrivs som mjukvara som kan tänka och lösa komplexa problem likt oss människor, har därför bemötts med en skräckblandad förtjusning. Framförallt finns det en oro för hur den tekniska utvecklingen, särskilt AI, respekterar de grundläggande rättigheterna, varav kommission år 2021 gav ut ett förslag till förordning med harmoniserade regler för artificiell intelligens (AI-förordningen). I förslaget till AI-förordning fastställs skyldigheter för leverantörer av AI-system som klassificeras som högrisksystem. Därutöver innehåller förordningen ett förbud för AI-system där risken för kränkning av de grundläggande rättigheterna bedöms som oacceptabelt hög. De skyldigheter som AI-förordningen ålägger leverantörer av AI-system med hög risk är både kostsamma och administrativt betungande. För att uppnå de omfattande kraven i förordningen kommer leverantörer som utvecklar och använder AI behöva anpassa en stor del av verksamheten. Det innebär en direkt begränsning av näringsfriheten. Kärnan i näringsfriheten, som återfinns i både EU:s stadga för de grundläggande rättigheterna och i nationell rätt, är att näringsverksamheter ska få drivas på valfritt sätt utan statens inblandning. Men näringsfriheten kan även betraktas utifrån ett vidgat perspektiv där rätten att konkurrera och utvecklas på lika villkor ingår. Förutom den inskärning som förordningen gör på näringsverksamheters individuella rättigheter riskerar den att hämma både konkurrens- och innovationskraften på marknaden. Kommissionen menar att denna begränsning av näringsfriheten är proportionerlig i förhållande till förordningens syfte. Men det finns många delar av förordningen som kan diskuteras och ifrågasättas. I själva verket kan förslaget till AI-förordning snarare beskrivas som en rädsla för den tekniska utvecklingen än en berättigad begränsning av näringsfriheten. / A future where computers can think, outsmart humans and take over the world has been portrayed in many science fiction movies. At the same time, there is a growing fascination for technical advantages and the endless possibilities it can bring. The rapidly expanding area of artificial intelligence (AI), software that can take intelligent decisions and solve complex problems similar to humans, has therefore been met with a mix of excitement and concern. A prominent concern raised in recent years has been regarding how the technical development, especially the application of artificial intelligence, respects the fundamental rights. As a result, the Commission published a proposal with harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (AI-act) in 2021. The AI-act contains a set of requirements for providers of AI systems classified with high risk of violating the fundamental rights. In addition, some AI systems which are considered to have an unacceptable risk of violating the fundamental rights, are prohibited. The proposed obligations imposed on providers of high-risk AI systems are both expensive and administratively burdensome. In order to fulfill the comprehensive requirements, providers of systems utilizing artificial intelligence are forced to make extensive adaptions to their business. This is a direct restriction on the freedom to conduct business. The core of the freedom to conduct business, stipulated in The Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as in national law, is the right to conduct a business in any way, without the intervention of the state. Furthermore, the freedom to conduct business can be interpreted through a broader perspective, including the right to compete and innovate in a fair market on equal terms. In addition to the restriction on the individual rights of businesses, the AI-act risks limiting the competition and innovation in the market.  The Commission considers the restriction of the freedom to conduct business proportionate in regard to the purpose of the regulation. But there are many parts of the regulation that can be discussed and questioned. In fact, the proposal to the AI-act can be described as an unjustified fear of the technical evolution, rather than a justified restriction on the freedom to conduct business.

No description available.