[ad_1]
According to full media reports, Guo Bing bought the annual card at Hangzhou Wildlife World in April 2019 for RMB 1,360. At that time, he was required to enter the park with fingerprint recognition and provided his contact number, fingerprints, etc., to the park as retention information.
However, in July and October, Wildlife World sent two text messages to Guo Bing, informing him of the replacement of the annual card entry recognition system and required the activation of the facial recognition system, otherwise he would not be able to enter the park normally. . In other words, the way to enter the park for annual card users has been updated from fingerprint recognition to facial recognition.
Guo Bing is not satisfied with this, he believes that facial features are sensitive personal information, once leaked or abused, it is very easy to endanger the personal and property safety of consumers. Without your consent, Hangzhou Wildlife World forced the collection of your personal biometric information by updating the annual card system, which seriously violated the relevant provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Act.
Therefore, Guo Bing requested the park to withdraw the card, but the negotiation between the two parties failed. On October 28, 2019, Guo Bing filed a lawsuit with the Fuyang District Court of Hangzhou City, requesting confirmation that the relevant content in Hangzhou Wildlife World SMS notices and notices on the basis of breach of contract and fraudulent behavior, Wildlife World asked the garden to offset the annual ticket fee and transportation costs, and delete Guo Bing’s personal data. On November 3 of the same year, the Hangzhou City Fuyang District Court accepted the case.
The Hangzhou City Fuyang District Court recently announced the results of the first instance, ordering Hangzhou Wildlife World to compensate Guo Bing for the loss of contractual interest and transportation expenses of RMB 1,038, and to remove facial features such as the photos. provided by Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint pass.
However, the court rejected Guo Bing’s further litigation requests to confirm the invalidity of the relevant content in the Wildlife World notice and SMS notification.
The court held that the park’s use of fingerprints, human faces and other biometric identification technologies in its operations did not violate the law. However, during the performance of the contract, changing the original fingerprint recognition method to enter the park to facial recognition is a violation of the unilateral change of the contract and does not constitute fraud.
Regarding the verdict, Guo Bing expressed “partial satisfaction” and will consider appealing.
Facial recognition apps in China are becoming more and more common, which has also led to more and more negative reactions.
Many people worry that if facial data is unfortunately leaked, traditional remedies such as changing the password will not help.
There are also netizens who believe that the CCP’s moral standards are not up to par. After stealing high-tech, they’ll use it for as long as they need it.
Earlier, Beijing’s rail transit commander revealed in a forum on October 29 that the city’s subway will establish a “white list” system, using facial recognition technology, and in the future, passengers will be able to pass through the canals. security “brushing his face.” He also mentioned that it is necessary to conduct classified security inspections, establish classification standards and form a corresponding face database, use the facial recognition system to identify passengers, and the security personnel will take different security inspection measures to improve the efficiency of safety inspections.
Lao Dongyan, a professor at the Tsinghua University School of Law in Beijing, later posted a lengthy article on his personal WeChat account, expressing concern about legal issues in the use of facial recognition technology. In the article, she said that she is confused about who to protect and who to protect from rampant investment in the security of the authorities, because as a law professor at a prestigious university, she feels that she too has become the target of the authorities.
In the article, he stated that in particular he cannot accept the statement that these preventive measures are “protection of the government in good faith.” He also pointed out that the people who control the data are not like angels. Actually, it is a gamble to put the issue of personal safety in the ignorance of others.
Professor Lao also said that compared to commercial organizations, she is actually more concerned about the abuse of personal information by the public power, because the price paid may be more serious than the loss of money.
