Article content
In briefShow moreShow lessThe Ministry of Justice and Public Security proposed rules for police use of AI for retrospective remote biometric identification, such as searching recorded video against images in a register after an event.
- The Ministry of Justice and Public Security proposed rules for police use of AI for retrospective remote biometric identification, such as searching recorded video against images in a register after an event.
- The proposal generally required prior approval for targeted searches for suspects or convicted people, with a limited exception for initial identification.
- A Norwegian consultation with response deadline 16 January 2026, not enacted rules at publication.
What happened
The Ministry of Justice and Public Security proposed rules for police use of AI for retrospective remote biometric identification, such as searching recorded video against images in a register after an event.
The proposal generally required prior approval for targeted searches for suspects or convicted people, with a limited exception for initial identification. The consultation sought protection comparable to the AI Act.
Legal status in Norway
A Norwegian consultation with response deadline 16 January 2026, not enacted rules at publication.
What the sources clarify
Retrospective identification means footage is analysed after an event, but the interference may still be substantial because faces or other biometric traits are compared with a register. The proposal generally required prior authorisation for targeted searches for suspects or convicted persons and emphasised logging and auditability. The limited exception for initial identification could not become a general route around approval. A defensible system would record the search basis, authoriser, registers used, match quality, human review and treatment of false matches.
Technical tests should measure false matches and missed matches across relevant groups and recording conditions. Access to searches and registers must be restricted, while logs should reconstruct the basis, parameters, result and human decision. Independent review of a case sample can reveal whether exceptions or low match thresholds are gradually becoming routine practice.
Practical implications
Before approving a search, the responsible manager should see purpose, legal authority, limited register, threshold and expected error rate. Afterwards, a reviewer should compare the log with the authorisation and record false matches. Repeated deviations should change thresholds, training or system availability rather than merely produce another justification.
Sources
Norwegian Government: “Høring om politiets bruk av KI til biometrisk fjernidentifikasjon,” 21 November 2025.
EUR-Lex: “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Official Journal text,” 12 July 2024.
For discussion
Which scenario should we exercise first?
