Following privacy concerns about the use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) in a mobile application for pensioners launched by the Meghalaya government in July, officials have said the app was launched in the “public interest” and that privacy does not infringe the right of ,
Responding to a legal notice sent by Jodhpur-based law student Z Jeremiah Lyngdoh flagging privacy concerns about the ‘Pensioner’s Life Certificate Verification’ app, the state’s Finance (Pension Cell) department in a written response Said that the use of FRT was “not mandatory” and that those with anxiety had the option of not using the facility. It also said that the use of FRT “does not require any anchoring law”.
Anushka Jain of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), a digital freedom organization that assisted Lyngdoh with legal notices, said it was worrying that the government thought they were using such invasive techniques in the “absence of any law or regulation”. You can use. “Without the law, there is nothing to stop the government from abusing personal data,” she said. Indian Express,
Launched ‘Pensioners’ Life Certificate Verification using Face Recognition Mobile App. this pioneering effort @Meghalaya Government Will help Meghalaya pensioners to submit life certificates digitally through their mobile phones.@ Ashwini Vaishnav@PMOIndia @_DigitalIndia pic.twitter.com/yKgY4aaNan
— Conrad Sangma (@SangmaConrad) July 15, 2021
The Pensioners’ Life Certification Verification App, launched by Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma in July, aims to provide a “secure, easy and hassle-free interface” for pensioners to obtain life certificates by verifying their identity using FRT on their smartphones. To do. Sangma said, “The app has come where and when it is needed the most, considering the fact that pensioners are elderly people who find it difficult to travel for services especially in these times of COVID, when they are outside Leaving should be minimal,” Sangma had said. launch.
In the following month, Lyngdoh sent a legal notice to the government stating that the FRT was “inherently invasive” and highlighted privacy concerns, including the lack of an anchoring law governing the processing of personal data. It states that there is no way for the public to take statutory recourse in case of misuse of biometric information. The notice also included the 2017 Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India case, in which the Supreme Court established privacy as a fundamental right, to support its argument.
The government in its reply on 1 November said that the FRT does not require any anchoring law. It argued that it fulfills all the conditions when it comes to the right to privacy including the test of proportionality, purpose and purpose. It said use of the app was “optional” and thus met a “test of proportionality”, and that the purpose of the technology – establishing the identity of the pensioner concerned – was “well-defined”. It also said that it fulfills the need to have a “legitimate purpose”, as the technology was intended to “provide additional convenience to pensioners”.
The letter called the concern about lack of legal recourse “wrong”, citing sections 43A and 66E of the IT Act as alternatives.
The IFF, in a blog post on Thursday, said that neither Section 43A nor 66E is relevant in the matter. The organization said that Section 43A of the IT Act neither applies to government departments nor provides for protection of sensitive personal data. Additionally, Section 66E applies only to the transmission of images of any person in his private area without his consent, and “has absolutely no application or relevance in the use of FRT.”
Jain said none of the country’s existing laws are equipped to respond to this technology. “It is very important that new laws are made before such techniques are used. But in cases where they have already been deployed, there should be some regulation,” he said, adding that the “360 surveillance model” could develop through FRT. “Such surveillance is against the democratic ideals of this country. ,” He said.
Lyngdoh, 22, a resident of Shillong, said the response reflects “poor on the government’s understanding of our constitutional rights”. “It is important for governments to reality-test any proposed projects, especially when they affect the privacy of citizens,” he said.
,