An Act to establish regulations for facial recognition systems in designated public spaces and to prohibit facial coverings that interfere with public security infrastructure; to enhance public safety and security measures in critical locations; to provide for enforcement mechanisms and penalties; among other purposes
The Public Space Security Act of 1745 is a New Alexandrian law that establishes a framework for deploying facial recognition technology in designated public spaces and prohibits facial coverings in areas monitored by such systems. The Act grants the Secretary of Interior authority to designate "protected public spaces" and establishes exemptions for medical conditions, religious beliefs, and occupational requirements.
The Public Space Security Act emerged from growing government concern about public safety following a series of security incidents at transportation hubs and government facilities during 1743AN and 1744AN. The Department for National Mobilisation, established as part of the Jimenez government's security apparatus, identified facial recognition technology as a priority for infrastructure modernization under the Force 1752 initiative.
Premier Juan Pablo Jimenez announced the legislation in his 1745AN Throne Speech, stating the government would "support legislation to prohibit facial coverings in public spaces protected by facial recognition systems, balancing individual rights with the needs of safety and infrastructure." The announcement drew immediate criticism from civil liberties organizations, religious groups, and opposition parties.
The Federal Gendarmerie had piloted facial recognition systems at the Cárdenas central rail station and Punta Santiago international airport during 1744AN, reporting a 23% increase in identification of persons with outstanding warrants. However, independent analysis by the Royal University of Parap found the systems produced false positive identifications at rates exceeding 8% for certain demographic groups, raising concerns about discriminatory enforcement.
Civil liberties advocates argued the facial covering prohibition would disproportionately affect religious minorities, particularly Melusinian women who observe traditional veiling practices and members of certain Zurvanite sects. The Nazarene Church expressed concern about provisions requiring religious exemption certification, characterizing them as government intrusion into religious practice.
Legislative controversy
The Public Space Security Act generated the most heated debate in the 11th Cortes Federales. Opposition parties united in opposition, characterizing the legislation as an unprecedented expansion of state surveillance that violated constitutional privacy protections established in Article 24 of the Proclamation of Punta Santiago.
Federal Assembly debate
Debate in the Federal Assembly extended over six weeks, with opposition deputies employing procedural tactics to delay votes. Federal Consensus Party leader Morissa Baumann accused the government of "constructing the architecture of a surveillance state" and questioned whether facial recognition technology had been adequately tested for accuracy across diverse populations.
Democratic Socialist Party deputies organized a series of protest speeches, with Deputy Carlos Mendoza of the Wechua Nation speaking for seven hours against the bill. Mendoza argued the exemption verification requirements would create "a registry of religious believers subject to government approval" and characterized the legislation as incompatible with New Alexandrian pluralism.
United for Alvelo Deputy Pablo Alvelo Nieves introduced seventeen amendments during committee stage, all of which were rejected by FHP majority votes. His proposed amendment requiring judicial authorization before accessing facial recognition data was defeated 381-368.
Secretary Fred Strong defended the legislation during floor debate, arguing that "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" and characterizing opposition concerns as "hysterical exaggeration." Strong's remarks drew sharp rebuke from FCP Deputy Elena Vásquez, who called the statement "the motto of every authoritarian government in history."
The debate reached its lowest point during the final reading when DSP Deputy Gabrielle Fitzgerald accused the government of "importing Benacian surveillance practices" to New Alexandrian soil. FHP Deputy Antonio Vargas responded by questioning Fitzgerald's patriotism, prompting Speaker Marisa Demeo to suspend the session for two hours to restore order.
Chamber of Peers crisis
The legislation faced even stronger opposition in the Chamber of Peers, where the FHP lacked a reliable majority. Academic peers organized a cross-category coalition opposing the bill on civil liberties grounds. Religious peers from multiple faiths united against the legislation. The Melusinian Bishop of Fontainebleau and the Archibshop of Cárdenas issued a joint statement condemning the exemption certification requirements as "state interference in matters of conscience and faith."
The Chamber rejected the bill on first reading by a vote of 82-75, sending it back to the Federal Assembly. The government declined to amend the legislation and returned it to the Chamber under provisions requiring a simple majority for passage on second consideration.
The second vote, scheduled for 27.XII.1745AN, was postponed when twelve peers sympathetic to the government were delayed by severe weather affecting travel from South Lyrica. The government requested a one-day delay, which the Lord President granted over opposition objections.
The final vote occurred shortly before midnight on 28.XII.1745AN, after nearly fourteen hours of debate. Several peers who had previously opposed the bill were absent, including three academic peers attending an international conference and two religious peers observing a holy day. Two noble peers who had voted against the bill on first reading switched their votes, citing concerns about "constitutional crisis" if the Chamber continued to obstruct government legislation.
The bill passed 79-78, with Lord Anglés, Marquess of Alpamayo, casting the deciding vote. Lord Anglés, who had expressed reservations about the legislation, stated he voted in favor to "preserve the constitutional relationship between the chambers" rather than from support for the bill's substance. His decision prompted protests outside the Legislative Palace that continued through the night.
Royal Assent
King Sinchi Roca II granted Royal Assent on 30.XII.1745AN, two days after passage. Constitutional scholars noted the King had no practical ability to withhold assent but observed that the brief delay was unusual. Palace sources, speaking anonymously, indicated the King had requested briefings on the legislation's civil liberties implications before signing.
The Ombudsman of Nouvelle Alexandrie announced immediately following Royal Assent that his office would closely monitor implementation and would refer any constitutional concerns to the Supreme Court. Several civil liberties organizations announced plans to challenge the Act's constitutionality once enforcement began.
Key Provisions
The Act establishes a comprehensive framework for facial recognition technology deployment in public spaces. The Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Secretary for National Mobilisation, may designate "protected public spaces" where facial recognition systems will be installed. Regional governors may petition for additional designations within their jurisdictions.
The legislation prohibits facial coverings in protected public spaces for individuals aged sixteen and above. Exceptions are provided for:
Medical conditions verified by competent medical authority;
Religious beliefs verified through established religious institutional certification;
Protective equipment required for occupational safety;
Temporary coverings during adverse weather conditions lasting no more than fifteen continuous minutes;
Authorized personnel performing official duties;
Cultural or traditional celebrations specifically authorized by local authorities.
Religious and medical exemption holders must submit to alternative identity verification procedures when requested by authorities. Enforcement mechanisms include warnings for first offenses, fines up to NAX€500 for second offenses, and fines up to NAX€1,500 with possible thirty-day exclusions from protected spaces for subsequent violations.
The Act establishes privacy protections limiting data retention to twenty-four months and restricting access to legitimate law enforcement purposes. The Ombudsman of Nouvelle Alexandrie is mandated to conduct annual reviews, and a Public Space Security Review Board comprising law enforcement, civil liberties, religious, and medical representatives will assess implementation.
Legislative History
Legislative History of the Public Space Security Act, 1745
The Chamber of Peers initially rejected the legislation 82-75 on first reading, with opposition spanning multiple categories. Academic peers voted 24-4 against, religious peers voted 19-2 against, and legal peers voted 12-3 against. Noble peers split 42-25 in favor, reflecting traditional support for government security measures.
The final passage by 79-78 resulted from several factors: the absence of five opposition peers, two noble peers switching their votes, and Lord Anglés's deciding vote. The vote occurred at 11:47 PM following a fourteen-hour session that began with a two-hour procedural dispute over the rescheduling.
Bill as submitted to the "Hopper" of the Federal Assembly, 1745 AN
PUBLIC SPACE SECURITY ACT, 1745
THE READING OF
A
BILL
TO
Establish regulations for facial recognition systems in designated public spaces and to prohibit facial coverings that interfere with public security infrastructure; to enhance public safety and security measures in critical locations; to provide for enforcement mechanisms and penalties; among other purposes.
This Act may be cited as the "Public Space Security Act, 1745".
Article 2: Definitions.
For the purposes of this Act:
"Protected public space" means any publicly accessible area designated by competent authority under this Act where facial recognition security systems are installed and operational;
"Facial recognition system" means any automated technology capable of identifying or verifying individual identity through analysis of facial features;
"Facial covering" means any item of clothing, mask, hood, helmet, veil, or other material that substantially obscures facial features necessary for facial recognition identification;
"Critical infrastructure" means transportation hubs, government buildings, financial institutions, major commercial centers, and other facilities designated as requiring enhanced security monitoring;
"Medical exemption" means documented medical conditions requiring facial covering for health protection as certified by a licensed medical practitioner;
"Religious exemption" means facial coverings worn in accordance with sincere religious beliefs as verified through established religious institution certification.
PART II DESIGNATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROTECTED PUBLIC SPACES.
Article 3: Authority to Designate Protected Public Spaces.
Regional governors may petition for designation of additional protected public spaces within their jurisdiction.
All designations must be published in the Official Gazette and made publicly available through government websites and posted signage.
Designation criteria shall include: assessed security risk level, volume of public traffic, proximity to critical infrastructure, and availability of technological infrastructure.
Systems shall be operated only by trained personnel from competent authorities.
All facial recognition data shall be subject to encryption and secure storage protocols.
Data retention periods shall not exceed twenty-four (24) months except where required for ongoing investigations.
PART III PROHIBITION OF FACIAL COVERINGS IN PROTECTED PUBLIC SPACES.
Article 5: General Prohibition.
No person shall wear, display, or use any facial covering while present in a protected public space, except as provided in this Act.
This prohibition applies to all individuals aged sixteen (16) years and above.
Persons entering protected public spaces must remove facial coverings upon request by competent authorities.
Article 6: Exceptions and Exemptions.
The prohibition in Article 5 shall not apply to:
Medical exemptions verified by competent medical authority;
Religious exemptions verified through established religious institutional certification;
Protective equipment required for occupational safety in designated work areas;
Temporary coverings during adverse weather conditions lasting no more than fifteen (15) continuous minutes;
Authorized personnel performing official duties requiring facial protection;
Cultural or traditional celebrations specifically authorized by local authorities for limited duration and designated areas.
Religious exemption holders must submit to alternative identity verification procedures when requested by competent authorities.
Medical exemption holders must carry valid medical certification and submit to alternative identification procedures when requested.
Article 7: Enforcement Procedures.
Competent authorities may request removal of facial coverings and verification of identity from any person in protected public spaces.
Persons claiming exemptions must provide valid documentation when requested.
Refusal to comply with lawful requests under this Act constitutes an offense under this Act.
Authorities shall provide reasonable accommodation for exemption verification procedures.
PART IV PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AND OVERSIGHT.
Article 8: Data Protection Requirements.
All facial recognition data collected under this Act shall be subject to the privacy protections established in Article 24 of the Proclamation of Punta Santiago.
Facial recognition data may only be accessed for legitimate law enforcement purposes, national security investigations, or court-ordered proceedings.
Individuals shall have the right to request information about their data stored in facial recognition systems, subject to national security limitations.
Unauthorized access, disclosure, or misuse of facial recognition data constitutes a criminal offense.
A Public Space Security Review Board shall be established comprising representatives from law enforcement, civil liberties organizations, religious communities, and medical professionals.
The Review Board shall assess exemption procedures, evaluate effectiveness of security measures, and recommend modifications to protected space designations.
Public complaints regarding implementation of this Act may be submitted to the Ombudsman or Review Board.
PART V PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.
Article 10: Penalties for Violations.
First offense violation of the facial covering prohibition shall result in a warning and mandatory removal from the protected public space.
Second offense within twelve (12) months shall result in a fine not exceeding NAX€500.
Third and subsequent offenses within twelve (12) months shall result in fines not exceeding NAX€1,500 and possible prohibition from entering protected public spaces for up to thirty (30) days.
Assault or threatening behavior toward enforcement personnel shall result in criminal charges under existing laws.
Providing false exemption documentation constitutes fraud and shall be prosecuted accordingly.
Article 11: Appeal Procedures.
Persons issued penalties under this Act may appeal to regional administrative courts within thirty (30) days.
Appeals must specify grounds for challenging the penalty and provide supporting evidence.
Regional courts may reduce, sustain, or dismiss penalties based on evidence presented.
Further appeals to higher courts shall follow standard judicial procedures.
PART VI IMPLEMENTATION AND TRANSITION.
Article 12: Phased Implementation.
Implementation of this Act shall occur in phases over six (6) months following Royal Assent.
Phase One: Designation of initial protected public spaces in federal facilities and major transportation hubs.
Phase Two: Installation of facial recognition systems and staff training.
Phase Three: Public awareness campaigns and exemption registration procedures.
Phase Four: Full enforcement of facial covering prohibitions.
Article 13: Review and Amendment.
This Act shall be subject to comprehensive review by the Cortes Federales three (3) years after implementation.
The review shall assess effectiveness, constitutional compliance, and public acceptance.
Modifications to protected space designations may be made through regulatory amendment without legislative action.
Fundamental changes to penalties or exemption procedures require legislative amendment.
PART VII CLOSING PROVISIONS.
Article 14: Commencement and Application.
This Bill shall apply to all of the Federation of Nouvelle Alexandrie.
This Bill shall not become law unless it has been given Royal Assent.
This Bill shall be published and made publicly available.
In the event any provision or part of this Bill is found to be invalid or unenforceable, only that particular provision or part so found, and not the entire Bill, will be inoperative.
Votes
Vote Tally for the Public Space Security Act, 1745
Vote Summary (Chamber of Peers First Reading, 18.XI.1745AN)
Category
Yes
No
Abstain
% Support
Nobility (67)
42
25
0
62.7%
Academia & Science (28)
4
24
0
14.3%
Religious Clergy (21)
2
19
0
9.5%
Legal & Judicial (15)
3
12
0
20.0%
Arts & Culture (12)
2
10
0
16.7%
Public Service (8)
5
3
0
62.5%
Business & Economics (6)
4
2
0
66.7%
Total (157)
62
95
0
39.5%
Vote Summary (Chamber of Peers Final Reading, 28.XII.1745AN)
Category
Yes
No
Abstain
Members Absent
Nobility (67)
44
23
0
0
Academia & Science (28)
4
21
0
3
Religious Clergy (21)
4
15
0
2
Legal & Judicial (15)
5
10
0
0
Arts & Culture (12)
3
9
0
0
Public Service (8)
6
2
0
0
Business & Economics (6)
6
0
0
0
Total (157)
79
78
0
5 absent
Aftermath
The passage of the Public Space Security Act triggered protests in Cárdenas, Punta Santiago, and Parap that continued into the new year. Civil liberties organizations, led by the New Alexandrian Civil Liberties Union, announced plans to file constitutional challenges once enforcement began. Religious leaders from multiple faiths organized interfaith prayer vigils outside the Legislative Palace.
Several regional governors indicated reluctance to petition for protected space designations within their jurisdictions. The Governor of Boriquén, responding to concerns from Wakara and religious constituents, stated his administration would "carefully evaluate" any federal designations within the region before cooperating with implementation.
Lord Anglés's deciding vote drew particular criticism. Protesters gathered outside his residence in Parap, and the Marquess received police protection following reported threats. In a statement issued the following day, Lord Anglés defended his vote as necessary to "preserve institutional comity" but acknowledged "deep reservations" about the legislation's substance and urged the government to implement it "with the lightest possible touch."
The Ombudsman of Nouvelle Alexandrie announced the establishment of a dedicated monitoring unit to track implementation and receive public complaints. The first designations of protected public spaces were expected within sixty days of Royal Assent.
