Almost forty Brazilian cities have begun to deploy facial recognition technology (FRT) in a bid to automate the public safety, transportation, and border control sectors. Such initiatives are frequently introduced in the context of ‘Smart City’ programmes, which exist in a sort of legislative vacuum. Despite the numerous bills recently discussed in the Brazilian Parliament, there is still no legislation that addresses artificial intelligence in general or FRT use specifically. Only minimal and incomplete guidance can be found in general frameworks and sectoral legislation, such as the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD), the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, the Civil Code, and even the Federal Constitution. This chapter provides an overview of the current status of FRT regulation in Brazil, highlighting the existing deficiencies and risks. It discusses whether LGPD rules allowing the use of FRT for public safety, national defence, state security, investigative activities, and the repression of criminal activities are reasonable and justified.

Particularly in the context of public law, comparative law scholarship typically involves a comparison of legal norms, principles, actors, or legal institutions in different state jurisdictions or across legal traditions. The rise and increasing prevalence of transnational regulators – particularly transnational non-state regulators, but also hybrid and intergovernmental varieties – challenges this methodological default. It invites us to consider the nature of regulation across different legal regimes, some of which might be overlapping, and which, in their claims to authority, might be complementary or conflictual. Acknowledging the presence of transnational regulators within a plurality of legal orders raises questions about how state-centric regulatory institutions at the sub-national, national, regional, or international levels differ from hybrid (state/non-state) and predominantly non-state regimes, whether in terms of their functions (e.g., in terms of standard-setting, enforcement, and dispute resolution) or in terms of their relative claims to authority and political legitimacy. This chapter shows how transnational law poses a conceptual and methodological challenge for comparative lawyers, yet one that reinforces recent innovations in the comparative law field, reflected in this Handbook, that extend comparative law beyond functional comparisons of rules, legal systems, or legal traditions.

[41.1] A statute has extraterritorial operation if it operates on, or purports to regulate, occurrences or conduct that occur either wholly outside the territory of the enacting legislature (whether federal or state), or partly within and partly outside the territory.