The Ugly Face Of A Crime-Fighting Move

Context: The implementation of the National Automated Facial Recognition System in India lacks adequate safeguards.

About the National Automated Facial Recognition System (NAFRS)

• Objective: To empower Indian police with information technology and facilitate investigation of crime and detection of criminals in a quick and timely manner.
• Envisages a national-level search platform that will use facial recognition technology for identifying a person of interest (e.g., a criminal) regardless of face mask, makeup, plastic surgery, beard or hair.

Issues associated with NAFRS

• Risk of error and bias: As it ‘identifies’ or ‘verifies’ only in probabilities. E.g., a 70% likelihood that the person shown on an image is the same person on a watch list.
  • Thus, there is a possibility of producing ‘false positives’, a situation where the algorithm finds an incorrect match, even when there is none, resulting in wrongful arrest.
  • Algorithmic bias: With the element of error and bias, facial re­ cognition can result in profiling of some overrepresented groups (such as Dalits and minorities) in the criminal justice system.
• Privacy concerns: As NAFRS will collect, process, and store sensitive private information. It fails the three-fold test of proportionality as per K.S. Puttaswamy judgment reveals:
  • Existence of law: It does not stem from any statutory enactment.
  • Existence of need: The state interest is to get assistance in crime investigation.
  • Proportionality: Even though there are certain benefits, it is not sufficient enough to outweigh the harm as the system proposes mass surveillance. 

• Social concerns – Threats to democracy: Unregulated use of facial recognition technology dis-incentivise independent journalism or the right to assemble peaceably without arms or any other form of civic society activism.
• Lack of adequate legal safeguards.
  • The Information Technology Act 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder offer broad powers to the Central government to infringe privacy in the name of sovereignty, integrity or security of the state.
  • The Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 is not much different and yet to be taken seriously by the Parliament.

Conclusion

• Without accountability and oversight, facial recognition technology has the potential for misuse and abuse. 
• In the interest of civil liberties and to save democracy from turning authoritarian, it is important to impose a moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology till we enact a strong and meaningful data protection law.