"Face Recognition First Case" Opens: Just Watch an Animal Why Force Face Brushing

Consumers filed a lawsuit because they did not accept the facial recognition access method stipulated by the zoo, and the "Face Recognition First Case" recently opened

Just looking at an animal, why do you have to "face"?

　　Reading tips

　　The domestic "Face Recognition First Case" recently opened in Hangzhou, and the unprotected "face" has become the focus of attention from all walks of life. Legal persons said that new technologies such as face recognition are widely used, but the relevant laws are still blank, and the collection and application boundaries of personal information need to be clarified.

　　The zoo changed the way of entering the park from fingerprinting to "face-washing". Because of reluctance to use face recognition, Guo Bing, an associate professor at Zhejiang University of Technology, took the Hangzhou Wildlife World to court. The case has also become the "Face Recognition First Case" of domestic consumers suing merchants. On June 15, the Fuyang District People's Court of Hangzhou opened the case to hear the case and will choose a sentencing sentence.

　　Guo Bing said that the purpose of his prosecution is not actually financial compensation. He believes that this is "a struggle against the current abuse of face recognition technology."

Focus: Is the "face" unprotected?

　　On April 27, 2019, Guo Bing applied for a two-year annual card for 1360 yuan at Hangzhou Wildlife World. The park clearly promised to enter the park by verifying the annual card and fingerprint within one year of the card's validity.

　　On October 17, 2019, Guo Bing received a text message from the Wildlife World of Hangzhou: The park’s annual card system has been upgraded to face recognition and entered the park, the original fingerprint recognition has been cancelled, and users who have not registered face recognition after October 17th You will not be able to enter the park normally, you need to bring the annual card to the annual card center of the park as soon as possible to handle the upgrade business.

　　However, Guo Bing believes that face information is sensitive personal information and does not agree to accept face recognition. "Is it because I refuse to collect face information, as a user of the annual card, can I not enjoy the right to enter the park?" On October 28, 2019, consultation with the park was unsuccessful, Guo Bing brought it to the Fuyang District People's Court in Hangzhou City. litigation.

　　Is there a basis for seeing an animal letting "hand over" a "face"? Is "face" unprotected?

　　It is understood that at present, my country's laws on the protection of personal information are scattered in the network security law and criminal law, and the personal information protection law is still in the process of legislation. In this case, the legal basis cited by Guo Bing and his attorneys is mainly the provisions on the collection and use of personal information by operators in the Consumer Rights Protection Law.

　　Xiong Chao, a lawyer from Beijing Jingshi Law Firm, said that biometric information is a cutting-edge issue, and there are still certain deficiencies in the law on personal information protection in my country.

　　"For a long time, people have paid little attention to personal privacy." Zhao Hu, a lawyer from Beijing Zhongwen Law Firm, said, "But what is worth looking forward to is that the special chapter of the Civil Code that will come into effect will provide for the right to privacy. And the protection of personal information, especially the integration of biometric information into the protection of personal information, which is a huge improvement."

Follow-up: Convenience and privacy can only choose one?

　　Hotel check-in, mobile phone payment, security inspection... The current face recognition technology has been applied to many scenarios, including the mandatory entry of information. Where is the boundary for the collection and application of personal information in the era of big data?

　　During the interview, several experts stated that the "first case of face recognition" involved multiple principles such as the legality and necessity of the collection and use of personal sensitive information.

　　"Is it mandatory to enter the zoo to "face-swipe"? Where is the necessity? Have you told consumers what information confidentiality measures will be taken?" Zhao Hu believes that when all kinds of subjects use face recognition technology, they cannot just emphasize their rights. , Not talking about obligations. "The zoo should fully respect consumers' choices, such as retaining other ways to enter the park, so that consumers who do not accept face recognition can enter the park through other means."

　　Zhang Wei, secretary general of the Enterprise Network Security Experts Union, has been working in the field of information security for many years. In his view, many information gathering entities have ignored the principle of "informed consent". "When we go to a business, we often need to fill out a personal information form. Information collectors should issue relevant agreements to the information providers, detailing how the collected information is stored and used, and please sign with the user to agree. But in reality, such It rarely happens."

　　"In addition to the collection process, the protection of personal information also involves many aspects. For example, users should have the right to delete personal information." Zhang Wei said, "We have done a survey before and found that on many recruitment websites, after job seekers have found a job , It is impossible to delete the personal information left on the website."

Subject: How to stop technology abuse?

　　"Actually, the'Face Recognition First Case' itself is just a contract dispute, but the reason it has caused so much concern is that it touches on the sensitive personal information security issues." Zhao Hu said, "This case reminds us that we should Be wary of infringement of consumers under the outerwear of technology'upgrading'."

　　"Whether entering a mall, amusement park, etc., we are required to fill in personal information and even collect facial information in more and more places. But which subjects and within which scope have the right to collect, the current regulations are still Blank." Xiong Chao believes that the collection of personal sensitive information, such as faces, should have a legal basis or the authorization of relevant state units, and actively inform and explain the basis of collection before collection.

　　"Some units can collect face information for the purpose of public safety or with the authorization of relevant departments." Zhang Wei said, "In this case, if the park was not authorized to collect face information, it was only for reducing labor. The reason for reviewing the workload and improving the efficiency of entering the park is untenable."

　　"The core is still in standards and norms." Xiong Chao said that for what kind of subjects have the right to collect face information and in what scope, the relevant departments should establish certification standards and audit access mechanisms. Information collection agencies must meet this certification standard in terms of technology or management. After approval, they are eligible to collect face information.

　　As the plaintiff of the "Face Recognition First Case", Guo Bing told the media that the case serves as a warning to the hidden dangers of personal information in the commercial application of face recognition, and hopes that future legislation and supervision will pay more attention to this aspect.

　　Lu Yue