IMY - DI-2020-2719

From GDPRhub
IMY - DI-2020-2719
LogoSEnew.png
Authority: IMY (Sweden)
Jurisdiction: Sweden
Relevant Law:
Criminal Data Act
Type: Investigation
Outcome: Violation Found
Started:
Decided: 10.02.2021
Published: 11.02.2021
Fine: 2500000 SEK
Parties: Polismyndigheten
National Case Number/Name: DI-2020-2719
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Swedish
Original Source: Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (in SV)
Initial Contributor: Anton Almer

The Swedish DPA (IMY) fined the Swedish Police Authority €248,218 for unlawful use of the facial recognition app Clearview AI, in violation of several paragraphs as per the Swedish Criminal Data Act.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

Through information in the media the Swedish DPA became aware that the Swedish Police Authority were using the controversial app Clearview AI for law enforcement and investigation purposes. Clearview AI is an app in which the user can upload images and through facial recognition find out if the person depicted on the image exists in other images in Clearview AI's extensive database, which is made up of three billion images scraped from social media sites and webpages.

Following the news, the DPA initiated an investigation against the Police. The investigation concludes that Cleaview AI has been used by the Police on a number of occasions. According to the Police a few employees have used the application without any prior authorisation.

The DPA highlights that the Police:

  • Failed to implement sufficient organisational measures to ensure and be able to demonstrate that the processing of personal data was carried out in compliance with the Criminal Data Act
  • Unlawfully processed biometric data for facial recognition
  • Failed to conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) which this case of processing would require

Dispute[edit | edit source]

Did the Swedish Police Authority violate the Criminal Data Act when using the Clearview AI app?

Holding[edit | edit source]

The DPA found that the Swedish Police Authority had not fulfilled it’s obligations with regards to the appropriate technical and organisational measures that should be fulfilled to ensure compliance with the Criminal Data Act (CDA). Even though the employees had used the app without an explicit recommendation from the employer, the employer is still considered responsible for the use of the app and as being the data controller. Since the data that was processed in Clearview AI was biometric data, i.e. sensitive, and also regulated by the public access and secrecy act the breach is to be considered severe.

The DPA held that the Police must:

  • Pay a fine of SEK 2 500 000
  • Implement sufficient training and organisational measures as per Chapter 3 § 2 CDA
  • Inform the affected data subjects as per Chapter 4 § 2 CDA
  • Delete all data from the Clearview AI app

All measures need to be executed by 15 September 2021.

Comment[edit | edit source]

The Swedish Criminal Data Act applies to personal data processing within law enforcement activities at such authorities as the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish National Economic Crimes Bureau, the Swedish Customs, the Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Coast Guard and the Swedish Prosecution Authority. The term law enforcement activities refers to all work carried out with the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting crimes.

Many law enforcement authorities also have other tasks, for example border control or customs control, that do not involve law enforcement directly. The Criminal Data Act will not apply to such activities but the entire General Data Protection Regulation will apply instead.

Further Resources[edit | edit source]

The DPA's press release (in English): https://www.imy.se/nyheter/police-unlawfully-used-facial-recognition-app/

About the Swedish Criminal Data Act and its relation to the GDPR: https://www.imy.se/other-lang/in-english/the-criminal-data-act/purpose-and-area-of-applicability/

English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]

The decision below is a machine translation of the Swedish original. Please refer to the Swedish original for more details.

                                                                                                            1 (8)






                                                                The police authority

                                                                Sent only by e-mail
                                                                registrator.kansli@polisen.se






Record number:
                             Decision after supervision according to
DI-2020-2719

Your record number: Criminal Data Act - The Police Authority
A126,614 / 2020
                             use of Clearview AI
Date:
2021-02-10



                             The decision of the Integrity Protection Authority


                             The Integrity Protection Authority states that the Police Authority has processed
                             personal data in violation of ch. 2 Section 12 and Chapter 3 § 2 and § 7 first paragraph

                             the Criminal Data Act by using the application Clearview AI during the period autumn
                             2019 through March 3, 2020.


                             The Integrity Protection Authority decides on the basis of ch. § 1 of the Criminal Data Act that
                             The police authority must pay a penalty fee of 2,500,000 (two million five hundred
                             thousand crowns.


                             The Integrity Protection Authority submits to the Police Authority in accordance with ch. § 7 first
                             paragraph 2 of the Criminal Data Act to take training measures and other organizational
                             measures required according to ch. Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act to ensure that the routines

                             that exists reaches the entire organization and that the authority can thus show and
                             ensure that all processing of personal data is in accordance with the constitution. The measures must have
                             taken by 15 September 2021 at the latest.


                             The Privacy Protection Authority submits with the support of ch. Section 7, first paragraph 2
                             Criminal Data Act The Police Authority that according to ch. Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act informs them

                             registered, whose personal data the Police Authority entered in Clearview AI, in the
                             to the extent that the obligation to provide information is not limited according to ch. § 5
                             the Criminal Data Act. The information must have been submitted no later than 15 September 2021.


                             The Privacy Protection Authority submits with the support of ch. Section 7, first paragraph 2
                             Criminal Data Act Police authority to take possible and relevant measures to they
                             personal data that the Police Authority entered into Clearview AI is deleted from

                             the application. Such measures must have been taken on 15 September 2021.

Postal address:
Box 8114
104 20 Stockholm
Website:
www.imy.se

E-mail:
imy@imy.se
Phone:

08-657 61 00Integrittsskyddsmyndigheten Record number: DI-2020-2719 2 (8)

                                Date: 2021-02-10






                                Report on the supervisory matter


                                The Privacy Protection Authority (IMY), formerly the Swedish Data Inspectorate, received attention in

                                February 2020 through information in the media that law enforcement agencies in Sweden
                                could have used the application Clearview AI. IMY initiated against the background of

                                the information immediately a review where the Police Authority was asked to answer about
                                the authority used the application as well as with what legal aid processing in so

                                fall occurred. Statements from the Police Authority in the spring of 2020 showed that
                                the application has been used by some employees within the authority on a number of occasions without
                                that the authority has provided the application to the employees. IMY therefore initiated one

                                in-depth review of the Police Authority's use of Clearview AI.


                                Clearview AI is an application provided by a US company that offers
                                a face recognition service where the user, after downloading the application on

                                a digital device, uploads an image that is biometrically matched to a very large one
                                number of images scraped from the open internet. The user then gets a result in
                                in the form of a number of URLs where any matches are available. 2


                                The police authority's use of the Clearview AI application


                                The police authority has stated that the application Clearview AI has been used in a number

                                opportunities during the period autumn 2019 to 3 March 2020.

                                They are employees at the National Operations Department (NOA) and the South region

                                who have used Clearview AI. At NOA, the application has been used by a total of six
                                employees, five of whom used the application in operational activities, e.g. in order to

                                identify plaintiffs in suspected sexual offenses against children and in reconnaissance
                                the activity of trying to identify unknown persons in the investigation of gross

                                organized crime. At Police Region South, the application has been used in investigations
                                of sexual offenses against children and tested by employees against images in the Police Authority
                                s.k. OBS portal. When the Police Authority's use of Clearview AI became known

                                through information in the media, the authority's data protection officer went out with one
                                recommendation that the National Forensic Center and NOA clarify and

                                disseminate that such use was not permitted.


                                Grounds for the decision


                                The police authority's responsibility for employees' treatment of

                                personal data in law enforcement activities

                                The police authority is a large organization with a special task of enforcing the law

                                and order. In addition, the police authority is governed by clear legislation on how
                                personal data must be processed, especially in law enforcement activities.

                                The large amount of personal data, including sensitive ones, that the authority processes
                                as well as the far-reaching powers the Police Authority has means that the authority has

                                a special responsibility for the personal processing of personal data.




                                1The web service states that they have collected three billion facial images from Facebook, YouTube and millions of others
                                websites. IMY Report 2021: 1; Privacy Protection Report 2020 - report on developments in the IT area when it
                                applies to integrity and new technology, p. 70.
                                2https: //clearview.ai, 2020-11-25.
                                3it support within the Police Authority where intelligence information is disseminated to law enforcement activities. Integrity Protection Authority Record number: DI-2020-2719 3 (8)
                                 Date: 2021-02-10







                                 The police authority is, as the person responsible for personal data, responsible for everything
                                 personal data processing that takes place under the authority's guidance or on

                                 on behalf of the authority according to ch. Section 1 of the Criminal Data Act. This means that all
                                 personal data processing carried out at the authority falls under the Police Authority's

                                 personal data liability, including the processing of personal data assistants, employees,
                                 persons on an equal footing with employees (eg temporary staff) or

                                 contractor performs. Also of ch. Section 1 of the Police Treatment Act (2018: 1693)
                                 within the area of the Criminal Data Act (PBDL) it appears that the Police Authority is responsible for

                                 the personal data processing carried out at the authority. That means it is
                                 The police authority's obligation to ensure that all processing that takes place within the authority

                                 has i.a. a legal basis, a legitimate purpose and that adequate safeguards are in place
                                 in place through appropriate technical and organizational measures. The police authority shall

                                 ensure that there are clear guidelines and routines regarding the IT tools provided by the employees

                                 may use and that the employees are sufficiently trained and informed about how
                                 personal data may be processed. 5


                                 According to the Police Authority, there are a few employees who have used Clearview AI without

                                 the authority provided the application to the employees. However, the treatment has taken place
                                 in the performance of the employees' duties at the authority. The treatment has

                                 also performed with personal data taken from current investigations and at
                                 the majority of cases during ongoing criminal investigations, ie. during

                                 exercise of authority. That it happened without the authority providing Clearview AI
                                 or approved the use of the IT tool, the Police Authority does not deprive it

                                 responsibility that the authority has as personal data controller.


                                 Against this background, IMY states that the Police Authority is responsible for them
                                 employees' processing of personal data when using Clearview AI.


                                 The police authority's obligation to through technical and

                                 organizational measures ensure and demonstrate that the authority

                                 personal data processing is in accordance with the constitution


                                 As the person responsible for personal data, the Police Authority has according to ch. Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act
                                 an obligation to, through technical and organizational measures, ensure and be able to

                                 show that the authority's processing of personal data is in accordance with the constitution and that it
                                 data subjects' rights are protected. It must be assessed in each individual case which ones
                                                                                                                             6
                                 measures needed taking into account e.g. which personal data are processed.
                                 Organizational measures can include be to adopt internal data protection strategies,
                                                                                                                     7
                                 inform and train employees and ensure a clear division of responsibilities. Actions
                                 which can be taken to show that the treatment is constitutional can e.g. be
                                                                                                              8
                                 documentation of IT systems, treatments and measures taken, etc.


                                 In the case, the police authority has submitted an internal routine for processing personal data
                                 within the authority. Some additional control document for the employees' treatment of

                                 personal data has not been submitted. Nor any data on how education of
                                 employees or how the internal routine should reach the entire organization has been submitted or

                                 accounted for. There is also no information that any education or equivalent
                                 activity has actually been carried out within the authority. That employees at two different


                                 4 Prop. 2017/18: 232 p. 171 f., 319 and 452.
                                 5 See further below under the heading The police authority's obligation to through technical and organizational measures
                                 ensure and demonstrate that the authority's personal data processing is in accordance with the constitution.
                                 6 Prop. 2017/18: 232 pp. 172 f.
                                 7
                                 8 Sandén, H-O, 2019, SFS 2018: 1177 Lagkommentar, Norstedts juridik.
                                   Prop 2017/18: 232, p. 453.Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten Record number: DI-2020-2719 4 (8)
                                 Date: 2021-02-10






                                 organizational units used Clearview AI in violation of applicable regulatory shows

                                 that the routine has not had sufficient impact within the authority. The police authority has the courage
                                 this background has not been able to show that there are sufficient organizational measures, in

                                 form of e.g. internal strategies or training, in place to ensure that
                                 the treatment is in accordance with the constitution.


                                 IMY notes that the Police Authority has not taken appropriate organizational measures

                                 measures to ensure and be able to demonstrate that the Authority's treatment of
                                 personal data has been in accordance with the constitution. The police authority has thus violated

                                 Chapter 3 Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act.


                                 The police authority's processing of biometric data in
                                 associated with the use of Clearview AI


                                 According to the Police Authority's information, there are pictures of people, who were then transformed into

                                 biometric data, in ongoing operational matters loaded into Clearview AI at a
                                 several times.


                                 The police authority has not reported on how the biometric data read into
                                 Clearview AI is treated in the application, e.g. if and if so how long the data

                                 saved, how the matching of biometric data is done, if the data is transferred to
                                 third country or if the information is disclosed to others in connection with its use. The

                                 according to information from the Police Authority is due to the fact that there are no legal assessments
                                 made before using Clearview AI.


                                 Biometric personal data is sensitive personal data and may, according to ch. § 12

                                 the Criminal Data Act is only dealt with if it is specifically prescribed and absolutely necessary
                                 for the purpose of the treatment. Of ch. 2 Section 4 of the PBDL states that the Police Authority

                                 may process biometric data if the use is absolutely necessary for
                                 the purpose of the treatment.


                                 The use of a service like Clearview AI involves the biometric of individuals

                                 personal data is matched against large amounts of personal data that have been collected unfiltered
                                 from the open internet. According to the IMY's assessment, a law enforcement agency can

                                 processing of personal data when using such a service is unlikely
                                 meet the strict requirement of necessity that follows from the Criminal Data Act and that
                                 underlying criminal data directive. The European Data Protection Board has given expression

                                 for a similar view. 10


                                 The processing of biometric data that took place during the Police Authority's use
                                 of Clearview AI has been performed without any control or knowledge from the Police Authority

                                 on how the data is handled by Clearview AI. Any assessment of whether the treatment
                                 been absolutely necessary according to ch. Section 12 of the Criminal Data Act has not been passed. Through it

                                 information submitted in the case, the Police Authority has not shown that the authority
                                 processing of biometric data in the Clearview AI service has been absolutely necessary for

                                 the purpose of the treatment.



                                 9Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of
                                 persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the competent authorities in order to prevent, deter, investigate,

                                 detect or prosecute crimes or carry out criminal penalties, and the free flow of such information and if
                                 Repeal of Council Framework Decision 2008/977 / JHA.
                                   EDPB response to MEPs Sophie in ‘t Veld, Moritz Körner, Michal Šimečka, Fabiene Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
                                 Anna Donáth, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Olivier Chastel, concerning the facial recognition app developed by Clearview
                                 AI.Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten Record number: DI-2020-2719 5 (8)

                                Date: 2021-02-10






                                IMY notes that the Police Authority's processing of biometric data has taken place in
                                conflict with ch. Section 12 of the Criminal Data Act.


                                Obligation to carry out an impact assessment


                                According to ch. Section 7, first paragraph, of the Criminal Data Act, a person responsible for personal data is obliged to
                                carry out an impact assessment before starting a new treatment that can

                                assumed to entail a special risk of invasion of the data subject's privacy.


                                The preparatory work for the Criminal Data Act and the underlying Criminal Data Directive is clear
                                that in assessing whether an impact assessment is needed, the treatment must

                                scope, nature, context and nature are taken into account. Special consideration must be given to the treatment
                                includes any new technology. 11


                                The personal data that has been processed in the application are biometric data and
                                these may, as reported above, only be treated if specifically prescribed and

                                absolutely necessary in view of the purpose of the treatment. Since
                                the use of Clearview AI has involved the processing of biometric data, which

                                includes face recognition, with new technology provided by an external actor in
                                third countries, the treatment may be presumed to have entailed a particular risk of infringement
                                registered privacy. An impact assessment would therefore have

                                carried out before starting treatment. The use of the Clearview application
                                AI was initiated, however, without any legal considerations or consideration of risks

                                invasion of the data subjects' privacy took place.


                                The police authority has not used the application systematically in its operations and
                                the application has not been recommended by the authority. As IMY stated above is
                                however, the Police Authority is responsible for the treatment employees performed during use

                                by Clearview AI. The lack of organizational measures has led to employees using
                                the application without first carrying out an impact assessment, despite the fact that

                                required according to ch. Section 7 of the Criminal Data Act.


                                IMY states that the Police Authority in violation of ch. Section 7, first paragraph
                                the Criminal Data Act has failed to carry out an impact assessment before use
                                by Clearview AI.



                                Choice of intervention


                                Of ch. 5 Section 7 of the Criminal Data Act follows the corrective powers of the IMY
                                violations of the said law. These consist of i.a. injunctions, prohibition of

                                processing and issuing a penalty fee.

                                Of ch. 6 Sections 1 and 2 of the Criminal Data Act follow that the IMY can issue a penalty fee at

                                violation of i.a. the provisions of ch. Section 12 and Chapter 3 §§ 2 and 7
                                the Criminal Data Act. The penalty fee must meet the requirements set out in the Criminal Data Directive
                                                                                                         12
                                that sanctions should be proportionate, dissuasive and effective.


                                When assessing whether a penalty fee should be charged and the size of the penalty fee
                                special consideration shall be given to the circumstances specified in Chapter 6. Section 4 of the Criminal Data Act,
                                i.e. if the infringement was intentional or due to negligence, the injury, danger or


                                11Prop. 2017/18: 232 p.181 f.
                                12Prop. 2017/18: 232 p. 309 f.Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten Record number: DI-2020-2719 6 (8)

                                 Date: 2021-02-10






                                 infringement of the infringement, the nature, severity of the infringement and

                                 duration, what the personal data controller or personal data assistant has done to
                                 limit the effects of the infringement, and if the data controller or

                                 the personal data assistant was previously required to pay a penalty fee.

                                 IMY states that the Police Authority has failed in several respects in its

                                 personal data liability when using Clearview AI. The police authority has not
                                 have taken sufficient organizational measures to ensure and be able to demonstrate that

                                 the processing of personal data in the case in question has been constitutional, processed
                                 biometric data in violation of the Criminal Data Act and failed to implement a

                                 impact assessment.


                                 As IMY stated above, this means that the Police Authority has processed
                                 personal data in violation of ch. 2 Section 12 and Chapter 3 § 2 and § 7 first paragraph

                                 the Criminal Data Act.

                                 It has not been possible to investigate whether the data subjects suffered any actual damage

                                 Police Department's use of Clearview AI. However, this is not crucial for if
                                 penalty fee shall be charged, without the fact that the risk of injury existed is in accordance

                                 prepares enough for this.Through the use of Clearview AI has employees
                                 at the Police Authority gained access to privacy-sensitive information about a large number

                                 registered. The European Court of Justice has ruled that access to large amounts of personal data
                                 by an authority must be seen as a special intrusion, regardless of whether the individual suffered someone
                                                                    14
                                 damage to the treatment or not. Also the information that the Police Authority entered into
                                 the application has been of a privacy-sensitive nature and it has not been possible to clarify what

                                 what happened to this personal data after the entry. Due to what now
                                 stated, the IMY considers the risk of injury for the data subjects to be high in the case in question.


                                 The police authority has processed personal data without legal considerations and without
                                 any control over or assessment of the treatment's intrusion into individuals' personal

                                 integrity. Regarding the use of Clearview AI, the Police Authority has not been able to
                                 account for what happened to the personal data the authority entered into

                                 the application and with the result obtained. It can be assumed that the data
                                 entered into the application is often covered by some form of confidentiality, e.g. Chapter 35

                                 Section 1 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (2009: 400), and the Police Authority has not
                                 presented any breach of confidentiality that could justify disclosure of

                                 the data. These circumstances mean that there are reasons to look seriously
                                 the infringements.


                                 The scope and duration of the treatment must also be taken into account
                                 determining the amount of the penalty fee. An attenuating circumstance is that

                                 only a few are registered whose personal data is shared with Clearview AI.
                                 However, the use of Clearview AI has been done for a total of a few months,

                                 and ceased only after the Privacy Protection Authority's investigation began.
                                 In addition, the Police Authority has gained access through the use of Clearview AI

                                 a large number of personal data and it is unclear how long they were entered
                                 the personal data and the data obtained through the matching have been processed.


                                 It may further be considered aggravating that the data of the data subjects were matched against one

                                 application with personal data from the entire open internet and that
                                 The police authority has no knowledge of what happened to the information provided


                                 1Prop. 2017/18: 232 pp. 483.
                                 Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-594/12, paragraph 35 and C-623/17, paragraph 70. Integrity Protection Authority Record number: DI-2020-2719 7 (8)
                                 Date: 2021-02-10






                                 matats in. The fact that it has been biometric, ie. sensitive personal data, such as

                                 processed and the fact that the data has been used for facial recognition also means that
                                 there are reasons to take the infringement seriously. 15


                                 In summary, the reported circumstances entail a penalty fee

                                 shall be levied and that a relatively substantial penalty fee is justified.


                                 The size of the penalty fee


                                 According to ch. 6 Section 5 of the Criminal Data Act, a penalty fee may be reduced in whole or in part if
                                 the infringement was excusable or that it would be unreasonable to issue a penalty fee. The

                                 the fact that the data controller did not know the rules or had
                                 Inadequate procedures are not a reason to reduce the penalty fee. 16 IMY
                                 notes that there are no other reasons for reducing

                                 the sanction fee according to ch. 6 Section 5 of the Criminal Data Act.


                                 Of ch. 6 Section 3, first paragraph, of the Criminal Data Act follows that a penalty fee for
                                 violation of ch. 3 Section 7 of the same law may not exceed SEK 5 million. Of

                                 the second paragraph follows that for a violation of e.g. Chapter 2 Section 12 and Chapter 3 § 2
                                 According to the Criminal Data Act, a penalty fee may amount to a maximum of SEK 10 million. The highest

                                 the amount that can be determined is thus ten million kronor.


                                 IMY decides on the basis of an overall assessment that the Police Authority shall pay one
                                 penalty fee of SEK 2,500,000.


                                 Injunctions


                                 The police authority shall be instructed to take training measures and others

                                 organizational measures required according to ch. Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act to ensure
                                 that the routines that exist reach the entire organization and that the authority can thus show
                                 and ensure that all processing of personal data is in accordance with the constitution. The measures

                                 must have been taken by 15 September 2021.


                                 According to ch. 4 Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act shall be the person responsible for personal data in an individual case
                                 provide certain information to the data subject, if necessary for him or her to

                                 be able to exercise their rights. The information must include include the legal basis
                                 for the processing, categories of recipients of the personal data and for how long

                                 personal data may be processed. The preparatory work shows that the provision is
                                 applicable e.g. in cases where the data subject risks losing his or her rights if

                                 does not receive the information or if it is important to him or her for any other reason
                                 to know the treatment in order to be able to exercise their rights. Another example

                                 which is included in the preparatory work is that sensitive personal data has been processed in violation of 2
                                 Cape. Section 11 on sensitive personal data. 17


                                 The information obligation according to ch. 4 Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act does not apply to that extent

                                 it is specifically prescribed by law or other statute or otherwise stated in the decision
                                 which has been announced on the basis of the constitution that information may not be disclosed, e.g. of
                                 taking into account the interest in preventing, deterring or detecting criminal activity;

                                 investigate or prosecute crimes, that other judicial investigations or investigations do not



                                 15
                                 16Prop 2017/18: 232 pp. 485.
                                   Prop 2017/18: 232 p.465
                                 17Prop. 2017/18: 232 p. 465Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten Record number: DI-2020-2719 8 (8)
                               Date: 2021-02-10






                               hindered, or that someone else's rights and freedoms are protected (Chapter 4, Section 5

                               criminal law).

                               As IMY has stated, it has not been possible to clarify what happened to them

                               personal data entered by the Police Authority in Clearview AI. It is therefore important that
                               the data subjects become aware of the processing in order to be able to exercise their rights,
                               in particular as regards sensitive personal data processed in breach of

                               Chapter 2 11 § BDL. IMY therefore assesses that the Police Authority has an obligation to leave
                               information according to ch. 4 2 § BDL. During the investigation, the Police Authority has not

                               stated something that the data subjects should have been informed about the use.

                               Against this background, the police authority shall be ordered to provide information to them

                               registered, whose personal data the Police Authority entered into Clearview AI, according to
                               Chapter 4 Section 2 of the Criminal Data Act with the restrictions that follow from Chapter 4 § 5 of the same law.
                               The information must have been submitted no later than 15 September 2021.


                               As IMY has stated, the Police Authority has entered sensitive personal data in

                               Clearview AI. Then there is a lack of information about what happened to the personal data
                               shared with Clearview AI and if these are still stored with the application
                               Finally, the police authority is instructed to take possible and relevant measures to:

                               ensure that the personal data entered in Clearview AI is deleted from the application.
                               Such measures must be taken by 15 September 2021.




                               This decision was made by the Director General Lena Lindgren Schelin after the presentation

                               by lawyer Elena Mazzotti Pallard. The lawyer Frida Orring is also involved in the proceedings
                               and the process owner for the supervision process Katarina Tullstedt participated. At the final

                               The case is handled by Chief Justice David Törngren and Head of Unit Charlotte Waller
                               Dahlberg participated.


                               Lena Lindgren Schelin, 2021-02-10 (This is an electronic signature)

                               Appendix:

                               How to pay penalty fee.


                               Copy for knowledge of:
                               The Data Protection Ombudsman: dataskyddsombud@polisen.se


                               How to appeal


                               If you want to appeal the decision, you must write to the Privacy Protection Authority. Enter i
                               the letter which decision you are appealing and the change you are requesting. The appeal shall

                               have been received by the Privacy Protection Authority no later than three weeks from the date of the decision
                               was announced. If the appeal has been received in time, send

                               The Integrity Protection Authority forwards it to the Administrative Court in Stockholm
                               examination.


                               You can e-mail the appeal to the Privacy Protection Authority if it does not contain
                               any privacy-sensitive personal data or data that may be covered by
                               secrecy. The authority's contact information can be found on the first page of the decision.