Use the law to clarify the limits of facial recognition applications

Original title: Using the law to clarify the limits of facial recognition applications

The collection of personal information must comply with the legal principles of “necessary” and “minimum sufficient”. Biometric information should not be used if it can be used.

“Facial recognitionThe first case “was tried. In April last year, plaintiff Guo Bing paid 1,360 yuan to buy the Hangzhou Wildlife World two-person annual card, which was determined to beFingerprint recognitionEnter the kindergarten and enter the fingerprint. After that, the garden party unilaterally requested to change the facial recognition. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit with the court in October last year, requesting confirmation of the notice and text message from the Wildlife World store.realizeThe relevant content in is invalid, and is a breach of contract and fraud.behaviorOn the basis of claiming compensation for the annual card fee,trafficFees, delete personal information, etc.

Currently, the judgment of first instance is to compensate the plaintiffcontractProfit loss and transportation costs total 1038 yuan, remove facial features, including photos sent when applying for the annual fingerprint cardCreditinterest. However, Plaintiff Guo Bing told the Beijing News reporter that since most of his claims have not been supported by the court, he will continue to appeal.

This time, as a law associateprofessorThe plaintiff had his “face” back, this is the law that supports the protection of facial information. However, this only resolved the plaintiff’s claim on a case-by-case basis and did not confirm the incorrectness of the garden party’s request to brush his face.

In fact, only since the “Contract Law”, the garden party has the first to lose: it is agreed to scan the fingerprint when signing the contract, and then the contract is unilaterally changed, and the contract has been breached. also ruled that the garden party violated the contract, but the verdict not only did not deny the legitimacy of his request for facial cleansing, but even made it clear that “the faunaOperatingThe use of fingerprint recognition, facial recognition and other biometric technologies in the activities did not violate the main requirements of the aforementioned law. “

The “Cybersecurity Law” clearly stipulates that the collection and use of personal information by network operators must follow the principles of legality, fairness and necessity. Fingerprint can identifyconsumptionThe identity of the people, avoid fraudulent use of the card, ask for face brush are not in the “necessary” does not comply with the principle “necessary” and “minimum sufficient” collect personal information from citizens.

By extension, facial brushing technology has becomecapitalDriven by the “pig in the wind” whether necessary or not, face brushing has become a fashionable practice, but not every face brushing scene can withstand legal considerations.

For example, in residential areas and other general places, the keycard can be used for security protection, so you should remove it for no reason.publicUnique biometric information, such as fingerprints and faces. Previously, some teachers were “really true” about access control using facial recognition in their communities: “Information from facial recognition was abused.riskIt is much larger than the real estate information and the real estate has no right to collect this personal information. For another example, toilet paper in public restrooms is often taken or stolen, but for this the public is required to “brush their faces”, which does not comply with the “necessary” legal principle of collecting personal information.

In fact, as a new technology, facial recognition does not mean that it cannot be used, but that it must have clear restrictions and application scenarios and cannot be abused. For example, some scholars have proposed that the end result of the application of facial recognition technology is that, in addition to the law enforcement activities of specific departments, any agency,companyNeither individuals nor individuals have the right to investigate and track people’s private lives using facial recognition. If this principle is not clear, facial recognition will be abused, in favor of the only significance of the case, it could not bring a generalized change.

It should be clear that biological information of people, including facial information, fingerprints and iris, is part of the right of personality and is protected by law. According to the principle of “necessary” and “small enough”, those that can be used should not be used. For this reason, in October this year, Hangzhou issued the “Property of Hangzhou CityadministrationRegulations(Revision draft) “, adding new content such as” Owners will not be required to use shared facilities and equipment via fingerprints, facial recognition and other biological information “, which is expected to become China’s first local regulation that explicitly draft prohibitive clauses on facial recognition.

Technology can make life more convenient, but any technology should not deviate from the principles of the personal information protection standard, facial recognition can not do, it should be common sense. In this sense, the plaintiff’s victory in the “first facial recognition case” has iconic significance, but there is still a long way to go to standardize facial recognition in various application scenarios.

(Source: Beijing News)

(Responsible editor: DF407)