[REVISION HISTORY]

Italy police surveillance and privacy rules

Updated 3 times since CLSTR started tracking revisions of this situation.

What changed

2026-07-30 16:47 UTC → 2026-07-31 01:55 UTC · added ~~removed~~

In late July 2026 Italy’s highest court imposed stricter oversight on police smartphone seizures, requiring documented justification, prosecutor validation and expert analysis to protect constitutional privacy. A week later the government introduced a decree to implement the EU AI Act, authorising police to use AI‑enhanced facial‑recognition in public spaces for serious threats such as terrorism or missing‑person searches. The draft permits real‑time biometric scanning and post‑incident scanning in squares, stadiums and protest venues, with data retained for up to seven days (longer only if needed for investigations) and immutable access logs stored for five years. Use requires prior authorisation by a prosecutor or judge. Parliamentary debate quickly sharpened. The Democratic Party, the Five Star Movement and the AVS coalition denounced the measure as a “dangerous blitz” on civil liberties, and members of the Chamber’s EU‑Affairs Committee walked out, prompting the committee to postpone its vote. The Senate’s European Affairs Committee issued a favourable opinion, while the Garante privacy authority called for stricter safeguards on biometric data. The European Commission reminded that the AI Act bans facial‑recognition in public spaces, a point the interior under‑secretary Luca Ciriani insisted the decree respects alongside constitutional guarantees. The decree remains pending final parliamentary approval. By 29 July the interior ministry accelerated the decree’s progression. Opposition parties repeated their criticism, labeling the proposal a dangerous blitz. The Garante reiterated that the draft is not fully compatible with the AI Act and urged additional safeguards. The European Commission again stressed the prohibition of facial‑recognition in publicly accessible areas. The Senate’s EU‑Policies Commission confirmed its favourable view, while the Chamber’s Constitutional and Justice commissions continue reviewing the text, further delaying a final vote.

Versions

Only revisions since CLSTR began indexing content versions appear here. Select a version to see what changed compared to the one before it.