Many have pointed out that such a technology is intrusive and even if it is introduced, it should only be done along with a law to regulate usage.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin on October 4 announced a Face Recognition Software (FRS) to aid the state police in its investigations. The software, according to the government, would help compare the photos of suspects with a data resource of over 5.30 lakh photos updated in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network Systems (CCTNS). An official statement from the state police said that the software would help track down accused persons, suspected persons, and missing persons. It would also help in identifying corpses by comparing with the data available with the CCTNS. The software would also share the information about a person to all other police stations and would help nab the accused if they happen to commit an offence in another police station limit.
Though the government is touting this technology as one that can create many breakthroughs, privacy experts have raised several concerns including that of mass surveillance and violation of right to privacy. Some have pointed out that such a technology should be introduced along with a law to regulate usage.
Anushka Jain, an Associate Counsel (Surveillance & Transparency), Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) said, “Firstly, when any such technology is introduced, there should be a law to regulate its usage. However, we do not have any laws both at national and state-levels. This poses several questions such as – how the software will be used and who is authorised to use it? For how long the data collected will be stored? Will it be deleted and if so who will delete it?”
Anushka further commenting on the downside of the software says that there is no Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the police with regards to usage of FRS.
She says, “The police taking photographs and videos of people in public spaces violates the right to privacy of individuals along with violating the reason for the use of the software that as per police will aid in solving crimes.”
In January 2020, the Chennai police had come under criticism after a policeman was found taking videos and pictures of anti-CAA protestors.
This sanction for the state police to photograph and videotape people at public spaces, perhaps including those participating in protests, is mass surveillance, which the Supreme Court has warned against, says Anushka.
“When there are no laws or SOPs for using FRS, the possibility of police personnel misusing the data is also high,” added Anushka.
Besides the threat of mass surveillance and misuse from the police, Anushka also points out how the software can misidentify the accused as the software operates on algorithms. “FRS works on algorithms. If a person’s facial features match with another person with a crime history, there are possibilities of police arresting the wrong person,”explained Anushka.
She further said that IFF believes that governments should refrain from using facial recognition software as even with regulations, it will still violate fundamental laws. Nonetheless any evasive technology should follow regulations that are in compliance with right to privacy law, Anushka urged.
Meanwhile, the police statement further said that the software will identify any arrest warrant pending against an individual and any crime history of the concerned person. This software can be installed in the computers used in the police stations as well as in the smartphones of the police personnel who are on ground duty, it said. The statement from the police department said that there are plans to update the software to identify faces obtained in CCTV visuals which could help track down people who are missing.
Prince Gajendra Babu, an education activist who has participated in many protests said, “More than being helpful in solving crimes, the software seems to be abusive in nature.”
With IANS Inputs
Source: The News Minute