Malta ditches 'Safe City' video surveillance programme
The government of Malta said it would terminate a plan with Chinese technology company Huawei to install a facial recognition system in Paceville and Marsa - so-called 'problem areas' of the island. Plans for 'Safe City Malta' first emerged in 2016, when Huawei announced an agreement with the Maltese authorities. The project hit the headlines after it was accused of being unjustified, and due to Huawei's controversial reputation. The brainchild of disgraced former Malta Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, it was also seen as tainted with cronyism. In 2018, Malta-based United Nations’ data protection rapporteur Professor Joseph Cannataci met with Safe City Malta director Joe Cuschieri to express his concerns about privacy and the system's potential for 'nationwide deployment'. In 2019, European Commissioner for Justice Vera Jourova responded to a letter from then prospective European Parliament candidate Michael Briguglio asking questions about the system by recommending that the Safe City project undergo a data protection impact assessment in order to comply with EU law. ➕ June 2023 . I nvestigative publisher The Shift reported that the government had renewed its Safe City board, calling into question its pledge to shut down the project. System 🤖 Huawei 🔗 Documents 📃 Huawei (2016). Huawei Signs Smart City Project Agreement at Its Global Safe City Summit at CeBIT 2016 Malta Strategic Partnerships Projects Operator: Malta Strategic Partnership Projects Developer: Huawei Country: Malta Sector: Govt - municipal; Govt - police Purpose: Strengthen law enforcement Technology: Facial recognition; Computer vision; Machine learning Issue: Appropriateness/need; Privacy; Scope creep/normalisation; Transparency
- Date it happened
- 2019-01-01
- Organisation involved
- Malta Strategic Partnership Projects
- Product, system or model
- Safe City Malta
This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.
This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.