In 2019, the Hellenic Police signed a contract with Intracom Telecom for the implementation of the Smart Policing programme, with a total value of €4 million. The project concerned the procurement of 1,000 “smart” portable devices, intended to enable facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, as well as the scanning of documents and vehicle licence plates.
Homo Digitalis was the first organisation to publicly bring this case to light, through a joint investigative publication with AlgorithmWatch in December 2019. In the same month, we submitted an access-to-documents request to the Ministry of Citizen Protection in order to clarify critical issues of legality and data protection. The response we received failed to provide substantive answers to our questions.
As a result, in March 2020 we filed a complaint with the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (HDPA), requesting that the case be investigated. The Authority accepted our complaint and launched an official investigation in August 2020. In the meantime, the Greek State paid the full amount of €4 million (75% of which was financed through EU funds), while the company duly delivered the devices to the Hellenic Police.
Ultimately, on 31 December 2025, the HDPA issued Decision 45/2025, warning the Hellenic Police not to activate the Smart Policing system, since, under the applicable legal framework, any productive operation of the system would constitute unlawful processing of personal data. The Authority found that there was no legal basis for the intended processing through the system and that the required data protection impact assessment had not been carried out in a timely manner during the pilot phase of the project.
This development gives rise to a strong sense of vindication, as it confirms—six years later—that the serious concerns we raised from the very beginning were fully justified. At the same time, it starkly highlights the waste of public resources on the development and procurement of technologies that could never lawfully operate. Four million euros of taxpayers’ money were spent on a system that, under the existing legal framework, was deemed unlawful before it was ever put into productive use.
This case demonstrates the urgent need for meaningful legality checks, transparency, and accountability before adopting high-risk technological solutions, especially when they affect fundamental rights and are financed with public funds.
You can read Decision 45/2025 of the HDPA here (EL).