[ad_1]
CCTV News, Beijing, November 21 (Headquarters CCTV reporter Bai Jie Gefu reporter Zhang Lingzhi) Hangzhou Wildlife World changed the fingerprint recognition entry on the annual card for the facial recognition entry. User Guo, who is a doctor of law, Bing went to court and became China’s “first facial recognition case”. The Hangzhou Fuyang District People’s Court issued a first instance verdict on the 20th, ordering Hangzhou Wildlife World to compensate Guo Bing for the loss of contractual interest and transportation expenses totaling 1,038 yuan, remove the facial feature information , including photos sent by Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint card, and rejected Guo. Bing filed other claims. Both the plaintiff and the defendant said after the court that they would appeal.
The case originated in April 2019, when plaintiff Guo Bing paid 1,360 yuan to buy an annual two-person card for Hangzhou Wildlife World to determine how to enter the park using fingerprint identification. Guo Bing and his wife kept his name, identification number, telephone number, etc., registered fingerprints and took photographs. But then Wildlife World adjusted the way annual card customers entered the park from fingerprint recognition to facial recognition, changed store notices, and sent two text messages to notify Guo Bing to activate the system. facial recognition, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to enter the park normally. The negotiation between the two parties failed and Guo Bing filed a lawsuit to confirm that the relevant content in the Safari World store notice and SMS notification is invalid, and demanded compensation for the card’s annual fees, fees transportation and removal of personal information for breach of contract and Safari World fraud. Wait.
On the afternoon of the 20th, the Hangzhou Fuyang District People’s Court rendered a first instance verdict: the defendant Hangzhou Wildlife World compensated the plaintiff Guo Bing for the loss of contract benefits and transportation costs totaling 1,038 yuan, and removed the information on facial features, including photos sent by Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint card; Other claims submitted by Guo Bing. The acceptance fee of the case is 80 yuan, 30 yuan will be borne by the plaintiff and 50 yuan will be borne by the defendant.
The Case Scene (Screenshot from China Trial Public Network Live Stream)
Both the plaintiff and the accused told reporters after the verdict that they would appeal. Plaintiff Guo Bing told reporters: “I do not support part of the request for litigation for sentencing. Still, I should refuse to accept it. I will choose to appeal. Either by fingerprint recognition or facial recognition, this technology is applied in places Public such as Hangzhou Wildlife World. Obviously it doesn’t make sense. From the perspective of personal information rights and interests, you can choose the method with relatively little risk over the two methods with the highest potential risks. “
Liu Shunyi, the lawyer representing the defendant Hangzhou Wildlife World, said: “We are not satisfied with the lower court ruling, and will appeal to the Hangzhou Intermediate Court. The ruling is still very different from opinion. of our defense. We were at the time. Annual card processing procedures and related procedures have been announced in the store notice. We collected fingerprints and facial information with the consent of Professor Guo, and facial information was collected for admission verification. There are screens on our doors. We want to verify Professor Guo’s facial images and also comply with the principles of legality, fairness and necessity. “
The media referred to this case as China’s “first facial recognition case” and it was judged as a service contract dispute. The Fuyang Court held that the focus of the dispute was actually the evaluation and standardization of the commercial operators ‘handling of consumers’ personal information, especially fingerprints and faces and other personal biometric information. The ruling did not involve whether the safari park itself is legal, legitimate and necessary through fingerprint recognition or facial recognition, but based on whether the contract is agreed upon. The court held that the two parties signed a service contract with fingerprint recognition to enter the park when applying for the card. The collection of facial recognition information of Guo Bing and his wife by Wildlife World exceeded necessary principles and was not justified. Although Wildlife World includes taking photographs in the application process for the annual fingerprint recognition card, it did not tell Guo Bing and his wife that taking photographs will complete the collection of facial information and the purpose of the collection. Guo Bing and his wife agree to take pictures, which does not mean that Wildlife World collects facial recognition information from the two of them when taking pictures.
The judge stated: “In summary, Guo Bing requested that Safari World delete his personal facial recognition information. The reason is justified and must be supported. Guo Bing requested that the information be deleted under the testimony of an external technical agency. The legal basis is insufficient and it is not allowed.
In addition to this case, Guo Bing also raised the issue of owners’ privacy and protection of personal information in the amendments to the “Hangzhou City Property Management Regulations” regarding the mandatory installation of access control by facial recognition in some residential properties. The draft) “later added content that” owners shall not be required to use shared facilities and equipment using fingerprints, facial recognition and other biological information methods. “
Guo Bing graduated from Zhejiang University with a Juris Doctor degree. In Beijing, another person who said “no” to the abuse of facial recognition technology in residential areas, subways, and elsewhere was Professor Lao Dongyan from Tsinghua University School of Law. In contrast, ordinary citizens remain relatively “silent” about these phenomena in their lives. Guo Bing believes: “Perhaps because we often pay attention to some cases of rape, rape, and even crime in practice, we will have a deeper understanding of the potential security risks behind this case. However, ordinary people are aware The risk in depth may not be as complete, but in my opinion, if the application of high-risk technology such as facial recognition technology becomes widespread, there is no threshold, any unit can be used, anywhere , once the following If the risk arises, the cost of recovery will be very high. In many cases, if it is violated, it may be difficult for you to find out. For example, if someone uses your facial information to participate in some illegal activities and criminal offenses, you may not know anything. In Zhejiang, two crimes caused by facial recognition technology have been reported this year. “Return to Sohu to see more
Editor:
Disclaimer: The opinions in this article only represent the author himself. Sohu is an information publishing platform. Sohu only provides storage space services.
[ad_2]