The Personal Data Authority (AP) has advised on amending the Aliens Act 2000. This bill deals with the collection and registration of biometric data from aliens. The AP objects to the bill because it does not sufficiently protect the privacy of aliens.
In 2014, the Aliens Chain Biometrics Act (Wbvk) entered into force. Under the Wbvk, if there are no European regulations for this purpose, biometric data may be taken from foreigners to prevent identity and document fraud.
When the Wbvk was introduced, a so-called sunset clause was included. This means that the law - because of the privacy impact - in principle expires seven years after its entry into force (in 2021). Unless an evaluation of the law shows that it is desirable to continue the legislation and a new bill will then be prepared.
The purpose of the draft bill on which the AP advised was to shelve this provision. And thus to be able to continue with the current practice.
The bill was amended while the AP was working on the opinion. The sunset provision does not now lapse, but is extended by 5 years. See further the Department of Justice and Security's response to the AP's opinion.
The AP objects to the draft bill because 2 evaluations of the Wbvk have shown that the current procedure does not adequately protect the privacy of aliens. The objections are briefly as follows:
The need to continue the current practice and its effectiveness have not yet been adequately substantiated.
It is unclear why the scheme cannot be limited to certain categories of aliens for the collection and processing of biometric data.
In practice, it is sometimes unclear to chain partners when they may or may not process data from the immigration records. This creates the risk that they process biometric data without a basis.
Some specific rules for removing biometric data from immigration records are proving difficult to apply. As a result, biometric data may remain stored unnecessarily long.
There is a lack of clarity about the conditions for the use of facial images in immigration records for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses. This is because there is no specific regulation for facial images in the Wbvk, as there is for fingerprints.
View the AP's opinion here
View the Department of Justice and Security's response to the AP's opinion here
