A much-watched lawsuit raises a more central question in face recognition technology: where is the boundary of the application of this technology
How to reject the “shame” and “steal” in the first face recognition case is still to be solved
Our reporter Lu Yue
On April 9, the highly concerned "face recognition first case" was finalized and sentenced.
The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that the defendant Hangzhou Wildlife World (hereinafter referred to as the "zoo") deleted the facial feature information and fingerprint identification information submitted by the plaintiff Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint card.
"Both the first instance and the second instance required the defendant to delete the illegally collected facial recognition information, and the second instance also added a sentence to delete the fingerprint information collected when applying for a card, indicating that the judicial decision supports the prudent use of personal biometric information." The plaintiff in the case represented the case. Said Ma Ce, a lawyer and a lawyer from Zhejiang Kenting Law Firm.
"I hope that this case will stimulate more consumers' awareness of personal information protection, and play a vigilant role in regulating the application of face recognition in the industry." Ma Ce said frankly, "The'first case of face recognition' has been hammered down, but this is not the end. "
The second trial adds judgment to delete fingerprint identification information
In April 2019, Guo Bing, a distinguished associate professor of Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, paid 1,360 yuan to purchase the Hangzhou Wildlife World two-person annual card to determine the way to enter the park by fingerprint recognition.
In July and October 2019, 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 face recognition system, otherwise he would not be able to enter the park normally.
Guo Bing believes that facial information belongs to highly sensitive personal privacy, and he does not agree to accept facial recognition, and asks the garden party to withdraw the card.
The negotiation failed, and Guo Bing filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Fuyang District, Hangzhou City on October 28, 2019.
On November 20, 2020, the Fuyang Court made a first-instance judgment, ordering Wildlife World to compensate Guo Bing for the loss of contract interests and transportation expenses totaling 1,038 yuan; to delete the facial feature information including photos submitted by Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint card.
Guo Bing and Wildlife World both expressed dissatisfaction and appealed to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court respectively.
The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment, requiring Hangzhou Wildlife World to delete the facial photos it had taken. At the same time, it added an additional sentence requiring Wildlife World to delete the fingerprint identification information of Guo Bing collected at that time.
Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court emphasized that biometric information, as sensitive personal information, possesses strong personality attributes.
Its improper use will bring unpredictable risks to citizens' personal and property, and stricter regulations should be made.
Do you want to delete the collected "faces"
It is worth mentioning that Guo Bing's request to confirm the invalidity of the relevant contract clauses in the shop notice and SMS notification was rejected by the court.
Guo Bing said that confirming that the content of this standard clause is invalid is an important appeal of the case.
"This is the more core issue in face recognition technology." Ma Ce said, "That is, where is the boundary of the application of this technology?"
The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court emphasized in the second-instance judgment that operators can only collect and use with the full consent and knowledge of consumers, and that they should follow the principle of "lawfulness, justification, and necessity."
Ma Ce said that the zoo can adopt a variety of ways to enter the park, and it is not necessary to "brush your face" to enter the park.
The zoo has stated that the use of the face recognition system is to cope with the large flow of people and facilitate consumers to enter the park quickly.
But Ma Ce believes that this kind of reason is "untenable." "Is it a large number of people throughout the year, or some specific holidays? The garden did not explain it in court."
"We do not reject face recognition." Ma Ce said, "but can we give consumers more rights to know so that consumers can make choices after they are fully informed?"
How to protect your rights when an individual encounters abuse of facial recognition
The "first case of face recognition" lasted two years from the first trial to the final trial.
Guo Bing said frankly that he has a lot of legal knowledge accumulation, and he feels that it is difficult to defend his rights. It is even more difficult for ordinary people to refuse the abuse of face recognition.
The reporter learned that the procuratorial organs have been exploring public interest litigation involving face recognition.
On March 29, the Procuratorate of Jingkou District, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province issued a public interest litigation pre-litigation procuratorial proposal to relevant supervisory units in the district, urging them to promote the rectification of the problem of collecting citizens’ facial information at sales offices to ensure that citizens’ private information is not infringed.
The Civil Code that came into effect this year establishes the protection of personal information rights in my country's civil legal system.
It is worth mentioning that in October last year, the draft personal information protection law was submitted to the 22nd meeting of the 13th National People's Congress for deliberation.
A spokesperson for the Legal Work Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress said that the application and development of new technologies such as face recognition have brought many new challenges to the protection of personal information. The Legal Work Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress will further extensively listen to relevant issues and conduct in-depth studies. Argument.
The draft personal information protection law is expected to be submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for a second review in the near future.
Editor's note
The case has settled, and discussions on the protection of personal information continue
After nearly two years, the final verdict of the "first case of face recognition" was pronounced.
In this case, the judicial decision emphasized the court's position of strictly protecting personal information in accordance with the law, and expressed the attitude of attaching importance to personal information such as biometric information.
However, it should be noted that the concerns raised by the individual cases continue.
In the first and second instances, Guo Bing requested that the zoo’s rules of fingerprint recognition and face recognition as the only way to enter the park were invalid. This request was rejected by the court.
Guo Bing believes that this is his key demand in this case.
Guo Bing’s "face" has been deleted, and other collected "faces" will not be deleted?
After that, consumers still want to "brush their face"?
According to legal requirements, the collection and processing of citizens' personal information should follow the principle of "lawfulness, justification, and necessity".
But in reality, some businesses believe that they have posted notices, consumers have "informed consent", and the collection of information is "you love me."
In fact, the purpose of some businesses is not "justified", and the collection behavior is not "necessary."
What's more, the face information collection of some businesses is secretive, and consumers are often unaware of it.
At this year’s “March 15” party, many merchants were exposed to obtain customer’s facial recognition information for commercial use without notification or consent. Consumers were “kept in the dark” during the entire collection process. ".
As a result, it is difficult to prove that there is an illegal collection and use of personal information, which makes it difficult for consumers to defend their rights.
Even if it is determined that there is an illegal act and the personal information needs to be deleted, how to confirm whether it is completely deleted?
The execution of personal information cases will also be a topic for the future.
In the era of digital economy, how technology applications seek boundaries in the balance with consumers' right to choose is a more core issue in the application of face recognition technology.
It is worth noting that the personal information protection law is being formulated, and personal information will also be fully protected.
Although the final trial of "Face Recognition First Case" has fallen, the curtain of personal information protection is being opened.