This morning (8th), the second plenary meeting of the Fifth Session of the 13th National People's Congress was held, at which the work report of the Supreme People's Court and the work report of the Supreme People's Procuratorate were heard and reviewed.

　　As the drafter of the report, Guo Jingkun, director of the General Office of the Supreme People's Court, explained the abuse of face recognition technology mentioned in the report.

　　The surnamed Guo of the "Facial Recognition First Case" mentioned in the work report of the Supreme People's Court was Guo.

Later, Wildlife World changed the way of entering the park from fingerprint recognition to face recognition, but Mr. Guo did not agree to face activation, which caused disputes.

The court ordered Wildlife World to delete the facial photos and fingerprints taken by Mr. Guo when he applied for the card.

　　Let's look at this case. In fact, in life, there are still many cases of such random face brushing. It may require more people like Mr. Guo, the party involved in the case, to say "I disagree" to random face brushing.

　　As the "first case" of face recognition, what is the breakthrough in this case?

　　Guo Jingkun, Director of the General Office of the Supreme People's Court: When the "Facial Recognition First Case" was brought to the court, there were still gaps in the relevant rules.

When a case goes to the court, the court, as a place to resolve conflicts and disputes, must give a result.

This case has gone through the first and second instance. The judgment highlights the court's emphasis on the protection of personal information security, clarifies the guidance of rules, establishes behavioral boundaries, and provides a practical basis for the improvement of relevant rules.

　　In July 2021, the Supreme Court issued a judicial interpretation on facial recognition.

From the "first case" to the "face brushing" with legal norms, what kind of signal does it convey?

　　Guo Jingkun, Director of the General Office of the Supreme People's Court: It is rare for the Supreme Court to issue a judicial interpretation specifically for a specific issue.

The judicial regulation of "face brushing" reflects the court's clear attitude to safeguard the security of personal information in accordance with the law.

Face recognition technology is more and more widely used, and the technology itself is neutral, but it is necessary to prevent the technology from being abused.

The judicial interpretation of face recognition is specially issued to regulate "face brushing". It is a beneficial attempt to solve people's livelihood concerns with "small incisions".

For example, it is clearly stipulated that hotels, shopping malls, banks and other business places abusing facial recognition constitute infringement.

For example, it is clearly stipulated that the property shall not be forced to use "face brushing" as the only verification method for entering and leaving the community.

For another example, it is clearly stipulated that mobile phone software cannot forcefully request personal information through bundled authorization, and so on.

Going forward, the people's courts will continue to adhere to the people-centered approach and continuously improve judicial policies, which will not only serve the development of the digital economy, but also safeguard the security of citizens' personal information.

　　(CCTV reporter Zeng Xiaolei Liu Yang wishes Tianfu Li Hongye Pang Haibo Yuan Yu Li Chengcheng Wang Sisi)