Your Face, Their Data: Facial Recognition And Consent Laws Worldwide

Facial recognition technology (FRT) is becoming more than just sci-fi fantasy in a world where using your face to unlock your phone is more popular than using a password. FRT is present everywhere, from social media and cellphones to airports and to identifying individuals in crowds,law enforcement. However, the widespread use of Facial Recognition Technology has raised serious concerns about privacy and data protection and led to some companies being threatened with fines or are fined and this potent technology poses a vital legal issue Do you or the database own your face?

A facial recognition system is a piece of technology that has the potential to compare a database of faces with a digital image or video frame that shows a human face. This tool finds and measures facial characteristics in a picture and is commonly used to confirm users' identities through ID verification services.

Exception to The Right To Privacy

This 'Right to Privacy' can only be infringed by the legal channels. Even these laws are being examined. The State's obligation must be fulfilled by these laws. It must establish a process that is commensurate to the objective it seeks to achieve. On a more straightforward level, the process shouldn't violate someone's rights in order to achieve a goal that doesn't need for such harsh measures. These legislation should also be in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 14. They forbid the state from discriminating on the grounds of caste, race, gender, and other distinctions and guarantee equality before the law.

Facial Recognition Software- A Boon Or A Curse?

Facial Recognition Software (FRS) stands at the crossroads of innovation and intrusion. Although face recognition software is a threat to the "Right to Privacy," it would be foolish of us to overlook its advantages. By detecting criminals and missing citizens, it may improve security. Additionally, because it is a quick and safe way to check who has access to a company's data, it can increase security for businesses. For everyday use, it also offers a simple and safe way to identify oneself. Face recognition does, however, have significant ethical, legal, and societal impacts, just like any other strong technology. In addition to being utilized to save lives, technology may also be abused to violate privacy, stifle dissent, and reinforce prejudice. The unchecked use of face recognition technology can result in civil liberties being violated, widespread monitoring, and wrongful arrests because of computational errors. These concerns become more significant in countries with opaque governments and inadequate data privacy laws. FRS can be a boon if used responsibly—with informed permission, non-discriminatory algorithms, and strong legal protections. On the flip side, in the absence of adequate supervision, it might turn into a curse by serving as a weapon of fear, prejudice, and authoritarianism.

In India: Draft DPDP Law And Aadhaar Concerns

India walks a tightrope between innovation and privacy, often leaning toward state interest over individual autonomy. Facial recognition is among the most intrusive surveillance technologies yet developed. In contrast to passwords, your face cannot be changed. It doesn't require your assistance, unlike phone tracking. In contrast to conventional ID systems, it operates remotely, discreetly, and frequently without your awareness.

India's strategy for regulating biometrics is changing. Although the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP) acknowledges the sensitivity of biometric data, its implementation is still in stages of development.

·       The largest biometric identification system in the world, Aadhaar, was introduced in 2009 by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). It has caused significant privacy and consent issues with regard to biometric (fingerprints, iris scans) and demographic data.

·       The Supreme Court declared that privacy is a basic right under Article 21 of the Constitution in the 2017 case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. This historic decision underlined that permission must be meaningful, informed, and revocable and directly contested unfettered data collection and the opaque use of Aadhaar data.

Nevertheless, implementation is still unclear. Consent is frequently not freely provided and is not informed; it is frequently packaged or buried in lengthy paperwork. Conflicts of interest arise because UIDAI continues to serve as both a regulator and an implementer, with exceptions for state usage. The likelihood of profiling and data leakage is increased by the frequent integration of Aadhaar-linked databases into other government platforms.

This article is authored by Sebantika Maity. She was among the Top 40 performers in the Legal Drafting Quiz Competition organized by Lets Learn Law.